Thurrock Council (202401665)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202401665
Thurrock Council
4 October 2024
Our approach
The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.
Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.
The complaint
- The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff misconduct.
- This report has also taken into consideration the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Background
- The resident is a secure tenant and has lived in the 1 bed bungalow since 15 February 2021.
- The landlord’s records show the resident reported antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour which included items thrown at windows, waste thrown into his garden and alleged racist comments. He told the landlord he experienced the behaviour since moving in and evidence of ASB was provided.
- The resident first submitted a complaint regarding the alleged misconduct of a staff member on 4 July 2023. The resident alleged the officer was rude to him on the phone, speaking to him in a slow, patronising, and condescending tone and making comments about him harassing his neighbour. He said he was unhappy and offended as he was the victim of harassment from his neighbour.
- The landlord responded to the complaint on 2 August 2023. It confirmed it had looked at the allegations made against the neighbour, and they had been investigated fully. It said the resident had been provided with updates, but there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations. It said it had spoken to the neighbours who denied the behaviour stating the allegations amounted to harassment. The landlord confirmed its duty to investigate all allegations, including counter allegations, and that it had not taken a view on who was the victim. It confirmed it had discussed the alleged racial motivation with the Hate Crime Officer from the police who said they did not find any evidence to support the claims. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
- The landlord’s records confirmed the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 3 August 2023 – he said he was unhappy and disappointed that he was made to feel like the perpetrator. While there was evidence of contact and meetings with the resident throughout August 2023, this was in connection with the ongoing ASB and not the complaint. It is not clear what instigated the next contact from the landlord but, on 30 August 2023, it emailed the resident to advise it had not received a complaint escalation request. It asked him to confirm what matters he remained unhappy with and the outcome he was seeking. While the resident continued to report incidents of ASB, there was no evidence of a further response linked to the staff misconduct complaint.
- On 11 April 2024, the resident made a further request to escalate his complaint. Although it did not directly reference the same staff misconduct issue, he said he had not received any support. He said the landlord had blocked his calls, was not allowing his complaint to proceed and that staff had put the phone down on him. The landlord advised it had investigated the comments, but there was no record of contact from the resident as he had asked for all contact to be in writing. It confirmed it was trying to arrange the installation of CCTV installation and that the manager had been trying to contact him. There was no evidence that the landlord linked this escalation to the previous one made in August 2023 regarding the alleged misconduct from staff.
- On 1 July 2024, after receiving contact from this Service, the landlord emailed the resident regarding the complaint escalation. It confirmed its contact attempts from August 2023 but as it had not received a response, it said it had presumed the resident had not wanted to pursue the complaint. It made 2 further attempts of contact to confirm what issues he wanted escalating, but no response was received.
- The landlord provided its final complaint response on 10 July 2024. It confirmed it had consulted with the staff involved with the handling of the case, reviewed the records, and spoke to several officers during the investigation. It confirmed the named officer had followed the correct process by contacting the neighbours and then asked him for his feedback following counter allegations. It again advised it had not taken any view as to who was the victim. The landlord confirmed the relevant call to the resident had been witnessed by another officer who considered it to be fair and professional with the named officer speaking in her normal tone. The landlord advised it had not received any other complaints about the officer’s attitude. The landlord did not uphold the complaint.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident has referred to ongoing ASB and the landlord’s management of this. According to paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
- The complaint raised by the resident was in connection with the alleged misconduct of a member of staff managing the case. His April 2024 escalation request was also concentrated on allegations about phone contact albeit he did mention ongoing ASB and a risk to life. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaint process reflected the concern regarding staff misconduct. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of ongoing ASB will not be included in this assessment.
- The Ombudsman has made a previous determination in relation to the landlord’s handling of ASB and hate crime (under case reference 202220272). According to paragraph 42.l. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (in place at the time of the complaint), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, seek to raise again matters which we, or any other Ombudsman, have already decided upon. Therefore, the historical handling of ASB will not be included in this assessment. There is evidence to suggest the resident is continuing to experience ASB – if he remains unhappy with the way in which the landlord is managing this, he should contact it to raise a new complaint as this will not be included in this assessment.
- The resident has also referred to the impact the ongoing ASB has had on his health. While we do not doubt this, the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. If the resident wishes to pursue this issue, he should seek legal advice as this is not a process the Ombudsman can be involved in. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused him.
Staff misconduct
- The Ombudsman recognises that is often difficult to investigate complaints regarding alleged staff misconduct, particularly when it is related to sensitive issues such as ASB. However, we still expect the landlord to conduct a thorough investigation into the allegations. This would usually include consulting with the resident to confirm the allegations and collating any evidence that may be available. It would be expected to interview the officer directly involved along with any other witnesses that may have been present at the time. Additionally, the landlord should investigate the availability of any other sources of evidence, such as call recordings, which may support an investigation conclusion.
- While there is evidence that the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident, its stage 1 complaint response focussed on the process that had been followed regarding the reports of ASB – it did not demonstrate the action taken by the landlord regarding the misconduct allegations made. Neither did it address the resident’s comments about staff being unavailable or unhelpful.
- The landlord’s final complaint response evidenced a more detailed investigation. The landlord referred to enquiries made, a review of records, and confirmed it had spoken to several officers. While this evidence was not provided to the Ombudsman, it confirmed a member of staff who had witnessed the call considered it to be professional and fair and that the named officer had spoken in her normal tone. While this was reasonable, it was noted there was no evidence of any contact/interview with the named officer. Furthermore, there was no reference to any call recording (or lack of) reviewed as part of the investigation.
- In summary, the Ombudsman finds service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff misconduct. It is acknowledged that the landlord said it spoke to a witness who overheard the conversation, but there was no evidence of it consulting with the officer directly involved and no reference to the availability of any call recording. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord did not demonstrate a thorough investigation. Therefore, in line with the remedies guidance and on reflection of the service failure identified, an order of compensation has been made.
Associated complaint handling
- The resident submitted his complaint on 4 July 2023, and the landlord acknowledged it on 19 July 2023. This was outside of the 5 working day timescale stated in the complaint policy and not in line with the recommended timeframe outlined in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It informed the resident of the issues that would not be addressed due to previous responses, and an ongoing investigation by this Service. This was appropriate as it set the resident’s expectations as to what the landlord’s response would focus on.
- The landlord responded to the complaint on 2 August 2023. This was 21 working days after receipt and outside of the 10-working day policy timescale. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay or provide an explanation as to why it was late. Furthermore, there was no interim communication with the resident to advise of the delay. This was unreasonable and is likely to have added to the resident’s frustration.
- In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the initial response failed to address the complaint and subsequently demonstrated a lack of understanding. It focussed on the process that staff had followed and did not address the allegations made by the resident regarding poor attitude. This raises concern with the landlord’s approach to complaint management and customer focussed resolution.
- On 3 August 2023, the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated. While this was evidenced in the landlord’s records, it later stated it had not received this. This is a record keeping and complaint handling concern. On 30 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident to ask what he remained unhappy with, but when it did not receive a response, the landlord took that to mean he did not want to pursue the matter further. While this may have been the case, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to confirm this with the resident, so he was aware of its stance. It would have also given the resident another opportunity to confirm his dissatisfaction – there is no evidence of this happening.
- The resident submitted a further escalation request to the landlord on 11 April 2024. While this was not directly in relation to the original complaint, it did refer to the landlord’s lack of support, issues with phone contact, the alleged blocking of the complaint and risk to life. While the landlord did respond advising there was no record of contact from the resident to support the allegations made, there was no evidence of a formal response to the escalation request, nor did the landlord address all of the concerns raised – this was unreasonable and was further evidence of the landlord’s failure to respond to the allegations made by the resident.
- Following contact with this Service on 1 July 2024, the landlord was asked to escalate the complaint. It contacted the resident the same day to ask what part of the complaint he remained unhappy with. It also advised of the contact attempts made the previous year which had not been responded to; therefore, the complaint had not been progressed.
- Despite 3 contact attempts by the landlord, it did not receive a response from the resident. It therefore escalated the complaint on the basis that the complaint definition remained as per the initial complaint. However, there was no evidence that the landlord referred to the contact history from the resident who had confirmed in April 2024 why he wanted the complaint escalating.
- The landlord provided its final complaint response on 10 July 2024. It referred to the investigation it had conducted before not upholding the complaint. While it touched on the actions taken by the officer, it also addressed the matter of the alleged staff misconduct and the findings of its investigation. It did refer to the investigations it had conducted in relation to the stone throwing allegations, however it did not follow up on the resident’s allegations regarding the lack of support and risk to life. While the landlord acknowledged its response may be disappointing and assured the resident it had taken the concerns seriously, it was unreasonable that it did not follow up on all the points raised by the resident.
- In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord was non-compliant with its policy and the Code in terms of acknowledging and responding to the complaint within timescale. There was a lack of communication with the resident and the response did not address or explain the delay. The landlord did not apologise or offer any redress in acknowledgement of this.
- There was evidence of poor record keeping and complaint management when the landlord missed the initial escalation request – this in turn led to the resident involving this Service. The landlord did not use the complaint process to identify the failures highlighted in this report, nor did it address the learning to stop these from happening again. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord did not adopt the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service: to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. Given the adverse effect on the resident and in recognition of the landlord’s failure to acknowledge its failings or offer redress, an order of compensation has been made.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff misconduct.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
- Write to the resident to:
- Apologise for the failures identified within this report. The letter should include any learning that the landlord is to take forward in attempt to improve service delivery.
- Provide answers to the escalation points he raised in April 2024, namely his allegations that his phone calls were blocked, and he was hung up on as well as his concern that no support has been offered to him despite comment that there was a risk to life.
- Pay the resident £50 compensation for the service failures relating to its handling of concerns about staff misconduct.
- Pay the resident £200 compensation for the service failures associated with its complaint handling.
- The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears that may be owed.
- Write to the resident to:
- The landlord should provide this Service with evidence to confirm it is complied with the orders above within the specified timescale.
Recommendations
- The landlord should consider rolling out complaint refresher training to all staff involved in the management of complaints. The training should include reference to the landlord’s policy and the Code and the importance of effective record keeping and communication to reach a customer focussed resolution.
- Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should confirm to this Service its intensions regarding the recommendation made.