Westlea Housing Association Limited (201911525)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911525

Westlea Housing Association Limited

(Amended on review) 23 June 2021

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 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:

a) The resident’s request to change his housing officer.

b) The resident’s complaint about a visit from his housing officer accompanied by the police.

c) The resident’s request to escalate his complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident complained in October 2019 about alleged historical actions of his housing officer, dating back to 2016. In accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. As the historical actions by the housing officer were raised as a formal complaint by the resident a number of years later, this investigation will focus on the months leading up to the complaint, dated 29 October 2019, and thereafter. Any mention of events prior to this are for clarity and background only.

Background and summary of events

The resident’s housing officer wrote to the resident on 7 October 2019, following his conversation with a staff member on 24 September, during which he had raised some concerns about policing in the area. The housing officer offered to visit the resident on 23 October with the police community support officer (‘PCSO’) for the area to discuss these concerns.
A member of the landlord’s staff internally corresponded on 23 October 2019 with the resident’s housing officer to advise that the resident wished to cancel the appointment for that day, as he was not feeling well, and his flat was “not tidy enough”. The landlord noted that the resident mentioned CCTV and cars in the neighbourhood.
On 24 October 2019 the resident’s housing officer noted that she arranged a new visit for 29 October with the resident.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 October 2019 and said that, according to his housing officer, the visit would not actually be regarding policing in the area, but in relation to historical issues. He said that the condition of the property was better than it had been historically, and he did not want the housing officer or PCSO, who he felt was harassing him, to attend. The resident asked the landlord to change his housing officer.
On the same day the resident called the landlord to reiterate the same points. He was told that his housing officer’s manager would be in contact, and the resident said he would take photographs of his newly decorated property for the landlord to view.
The resident’s housing officer noted that on 29 October 2019 she attended the property with two PCSOs. The resident answered the door and said that the visit had been cancelled, and that he had emailed the previous week asking for a new housing officer. He said that his request had been agreed. The resident closed the door and the housing officer and PCSOs left.
The resident’s housing officer corresponded internally on 29 October 2019, saying that she would write to the resident with a new appointment.
The resident requested a complaint form on 29 October 2019, which the landlord confirmed it would send. The resident also called the landlord and said that three police officers visited him with the landlord’s officer, and he wanted to be left alone. The landlord explained that it needed to inspect his property, and it was agreed that the housing officer would be arranging another appointment in two weeks. The resident did not want the housing officer or PCSO attending, and the landlord said it would see if there was anyone else that could attend.
Following a call with the resident on 5 November 2019, the landlord wrote to him on 6 November about what it said was his unacceptable behaviour. It said that, during the conversation the resident said that he wanted his housing officer changed, and to take his complaint, regarding his housing officer and PCSO, to the Ombudsman. The landlord noted that in the call it had “explained the reason for the visit was to discuss the telephone calls and emails you have been sending in to our Contact Centre and to address some of your concerns about your local area, which appear to be the responsibility of the Police.”
The landlord said that in the call the resident had made several threats of violence against the housing officer and PCSO. It acknowledged his desire to bring his complaint to this Service but explained that the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to investigate his complaints first. It explained the steps involved in doing that. The landlord also recommended that the resident consider using an advocacy service, who may be able to help make communication with the landlord easier for him. Nonetheless, the landlord explained that the threats the resident had made were serious, and it had passed them to the police. It would also make a safeguarding referral to the local authority and would only make future visits accompanied by the police. It explained its unacceptable behaviour policy and clarified what was not acceptable.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 November 2019 and said that he had an “interfering housing officer” that was acting against him and he wanted a new housing officer. The landlord acknowledged this on 18 November 2019 and confirmed that it would forward the email onto his housing officer’s manager.
On 18 November 2019 the landlord received a complaint form from the resident. He reiterated that he wanted a different housing officer. He explained that his appointment with his housing officer on 29 October was meant to have been cancelled, but the landlord attended with police officers. He was unhappy with the housing officer’s handling of historical incidents.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 20 November 2019 and said that it would aim to respond by 4 December.
In the landlord’s response to the complaint, dated 28 November 2019, it addressed several issues, including several not mentioned in the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained that residents were not able to choose their housing officer, and explained the housing officer’s role.
The landlord confirmed that the housing officer had called the resident, after the appointment for 23 October 2019 was cancelled, to arrange a new appointment. This was to discuss the resident’s comments made during the call about how the neighbourhood could be improved, including crime prevention, which was managed by the police. The landlord said that the housing officer explained that she had previously needed to work with the resident to improve the condition of the property, and during this visit she would also check that everything was still in order. The landlord said that it expected housing officers to complete follow-up visits with customers so any potential issues can be recognised and resolved early. It found that the housing officer was clear about her reasons to visit the resident, and it was satisfied with the service she had provided.
Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that the housing officer had explained to him that the PSCO would be coming to talk about the ideas and concerns he raised about policing in the area. The landlord said that it clarified to him that he was not in any trouble, and if he was not happy about letting the PSCO into his home, it would ask her to wait outside. There were two other police officers present with the PCSO on 29 October in relation to another matter in the area, and they would not have asked or expected to enter the resident’s home. The landlord noted that the resident said they left in a car together and he thought they were friends. It explained that housing officers work closely with local police officers and arriving in the same car was not unusual. The landlord concluded the response by saying the resident could make contact if he wanted to discuss the content, but it did not explain how he could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied.
The resident called the landlord on 14 December 2019 and again asked for the landlord to consider changing his housing officer and take disciplinary action against her. He said that he had also complained to the police about the PSCO and asked the landlord to address the matter with ‘the urgency and seriousness it deserves’. He referred to his phone call to change his housing officer and cancel a visit.
A staff member of the landlord’s later corresponded, on that day, that they had received a call from the resident who wished to complain.
The resident called the landlord on 11 April 2020 to ask if his housing officer had been changed, and for written communication to confirm his complaint had been logged. He explained that he felt that his housing officer visited with the police without reason.
The resident asked to escalate his complaint on 24 April 2020 about his housing officer. He said he was promised a change of officer in October 2019 and on 3 January 2020.
On 27 April 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had forwarded on the resident’s stage two complaint to the relevant team.
In an email to the resident, dated 29 April 2020, the landlord advised that it was unable to escalate his complaint because it had been more than four weeks since its formal response to the complaint on 28 November 2019. It explained that, if the resident remained unhappy with its handling of the complaint, he should contact this Service for more advice.

Assessment and findings

Request to change housing officer

Landlords may utilise their staff as they see fit, within reason. It is outside of this Service’s remit to investigate complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues; therefore, this Service cannot comment on the resident’s request that the landlord take disciplinary action against the housing officer. However, in the face of such a complaint and request to change an officer, good practice would be for the landlord to consider the request and respond, in line with its complaints procedure, explaining the grounds for any decisions it made.
In this case the landlord responded to this aspect of the resident’s complaint reasonably. It considered his request to have his housing officer changed and addressed it in its complaint response. It advised that residents are not able to choose their housing officer and clarified the housing officer’s role. It confirmed that it had examined the service provided by the housing officer and found no reason to allocate a different housing officer.

Housing officer visit with the police

The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord says that it is an obligation of the resident to “allow [the landlord’s] officers, employees and agents access at all reasonable hours of the day, or on being given reasonable notice (which would normally be 24 hours) for the purpose of inspecting the condition of the property; to investigate any complaint regarding the premises or their occupation…”
In responding to the resident’s complaint about the unwanted visit and PCSO attendance, the landlord confirmed that it had rearranged the appointment originally scheduled for 23 October 2019 to 29 October with the resident. It also said that it explained to the resident the reason for the appointment and why the police would be attending. This is evidenced in the landlord’s notes of its call with the resident on 24 October 2019 and in its letter, dated 7 October, to the resident. The landlord’s explanation was accurate, and therefore reasonable in this regard.
It is evident from the landlord’s call logs and emails that the resident asked on 25 and 26 October 2019 that the housing officer and PCSO not attend the appointment for 29 October. The landlord explained that it would try to get somebody else to attend, but there is no evidence of the landlord guaranteeing it would do so. In its complaint response it explained why it would not change the officer, and why they had visited. As per the tenancy agreement, the landlord was entitled to attend a pre-arranged visit, and it was for it to decide which of its staff conducted the visit, or who they were accompanied by.

Request to escalate complaint

The landlord’s complaints procedure says that, in its response at the ‘investigation’ (first formal) stage, it must provide a name and contact number of the investigating officer for any future correspondence in relation to the complaint. It also says that, if a resident is not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation, they can approach the Housing Ombudsman Service or request that the complaint be moved onto the “review stage”. The complaint procedure says that a request to review must be received within four weeks of the investigation response being sent.
The resident called the landlord regarding his complaint in December 2019 via telephone and expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions and complaint response. The resident asked again to escalate his complaint on 11 April 2020. The landlord only escalated the complaint following his email of 24 April. The landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint in December 2019, which would have been within four weeks and therefore in time. The landlord did not advise the resident how he could escalate his complaint at the investigation stage, nor was the resident advised that there was a time limit for him to do so.
It is evident that both the landlord and resident found the situation and communication difficult. This Service has further considered that the resident’s strongly worded threats towards the landlord’s staff member during the complaint was a factor which affected the handling of the formal complaint. He was also abusive and derogatory in the emails to the landlord, which the Ombudsman believes was not acceptable nor reasonable.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies provides that in deciding the appropriate award of compensation ‘we also consider any extent to which the complainant’s actions might have contributed to the situation in which they found themselves.’ Thus, the resident’s aggravating behaviour and the confusion created by him stating that he was seeking legal action, have been considered as mitigating circumstances which will affect the amount ordered in compensation for the landlord’s identified failings in this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to change his housing officer.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about a visit from his housing officer accompanied by the police.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to escalate his complaint.

Order

In light of the findings of this investigation, the landlord is ordered to:

a) Pay the resident £50 compensation.

This payment should be made within four weeks of this report. The landlord should update this Service when it has done so.