Islington Council (202009822)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009822

Islington Council

26 April 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 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

1. The complaint refers to:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. 
3. The resident called the landlord on 27 March 2020 to advise that he wished to make a complaint about a staff member who had answered the phone to him that day. He said that the staff member was extremely rude to him and then accused the resident of being rude. The resident said that he had asked for advice related to the payment line, but the staff member’s manner was not acceptable.
4. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident on 21 April 2020 and advised the following:
   1. The landlord confirmed that it had a limited number of staff members who would have possibly answered the resident’s call. It explained that no notes were left on the resident’s file and most members of the team had no recollection of the conversation on 27 March 2020. It explained that one member of the team was absent from work. It had therefore not been able to identify who the resident had spoken to definitively.
   2. It confirmed that it had reminded its staff members of the standards expected of them when they take calls and speak to residents, and the importance of keeping records. It explained that it expected residents to also treat its members of staff courteously.
   3. The landlord confirmed that the resident had contacted the landlord on 3 March 2020 to discuss his rent account. It noted that the resident had agreed to make weekly payments towards his rent arrears on this date, but it had not received a payment since 27 March 2020. It advised that it had asked the advisor who set up the arrangement to contact the resident.
   4. The landlord advised that in the absence of evidence, it could only partially uphold the resident’s complaint. It had not been able to identify the member of staff the resident spoke to and apologised that the resident was unhappy with any staff conduct. It explained that if the resident remained dissatisfied, this matter could be escalated to the next stage of its complaints process.
5. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 24 April 2020. He said that he was dissatisfied that the landlord had responded to his complaint by mentioning the current arrears status of his rent account. He explained that he did not believe the staff member who handled his stage one complaint to be impartial based on previous complaints he had made. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord appeared to suggest that calls were not recorded which he found surprising. He remained dissatisfied that the member of staff who had been rude to him with no provocation had not been identified by the landlord, and he had not been provided with a satisfactory conclusion.
6. The landlord issued its review stage complaint response to the resident on 7 May 2020 and advised the following:
   1. It explained that it was the responsibility of the member of staff handling the resident’s complaint to respond to complaints in line with its complaints procedure. It advised that the resident’s rent arrears had been mentioned for informational purposes only and it did not seek to steer away from the complaint. It apologised for any upset that may have been caused by this.
   2. It advised that it was unable to comment on any previous issues the resident may have had with the member of staff handling his complaint as the resident had not provided any specific examples. The landlord advised that the member of staff concerned had said that they had not dealt with any of the resident’s concerns for several years prior to the most recent complaint. It had not found any evidence to suggest that the stage one complaint response was not impartial or balanced. 
   3. The landlord confirmed that the internal department responsible for responding to the complaint did not currently have access to the necessary system to access call recordings. The landlord apologised for this and for any concerns which arose during the call and conversation in question. It advised that once the call recording was available, it could review and provide this should the resident wish to receive it.
   4. The landlord advised that the complaint was partially upheld despite a lack of evidence to reach a mutual resolution. The members of staff responsible for answering these calls were also reminded to ensure they maintain good customer service when speaking with residents. The landlord advised that it did not have any evidence of the conversation and was therefore unable to determine whether a member of staff was rude to the resident or not. It apologised for any upset which had been caused.
   5. The landlord advised that it had spoken to the member of staff who was absent previously and they had advised that they had no recollection of the phone call. It therefore could not identify who the resident had spoken to. The landlord confirmed that the complaint remained partially upheld. It explained that if the resident remained dissatisfied, he could escalate his complaint to the next stage of its internal complaints process.
7. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 May 2020 and explained that he remained dissatisfied that the stage one complaint response had included information about his rent arrears when he was specifically looking for a response to his complaint related to the conduct of a member of staff. He advised that it was spiteful for the landlord to do so and this matter should have been addressed separately. He advised that he had complained about the conduct of the staff member swiftly after the call and the matter would have been fresh in the offending agent’s mind. It did not make sense to the resident that the member of staff could not be identified, and he believed that the landlord did not want to identify or reprimand the staff member. The resident explained that he could identify the staff member by their voice as the landlord had a fairly small team of staff. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated and expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in identifying the member of staff who was rude to him.
8. The landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident on 30 July 2020 and advised the following:
   1. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and advised that it was unable to provide a response within its timescales due to an increase in escalated complaint requests.
   2. It explained that because the resident’s call was an enquiry or request for advice, no notes were recorded of the conversation. It advised that calls were not being recorded at the time but it hoped that its recording facility would be reinstated in the future.
   3. It acknowledged that it would have been helpful if, on receipt of the complaint and at the earliest opportunity, staff were spoken to, to identify the advisor concerned. It explained that at the time of the resident’s call, all staff members were working remotely due to Covid-19. It said it was unfortunate that questions were not asked sooner. Details related to the complaint were addressed nearer the start of the investigation, but the staff members had no recollection of the incident. It repeated its apology for any distress caused to the resident.
   4. The landlord explained that if the resident still remained dissatisfied, he should contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to the conduct of a member of staff.

9. The landlord’s complaint policy states that complaints about staff conduct would be investigated under the usual complaints policy but there is also a separate human resources (HR) Policy which governs these issues. The landlord would therefore be expected to investigate the alleged rude behaviour internally and follow its internal HR process if evidence of misconduct by one of its staff members had been found.
10. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
11. The landlord acted appropriately in investigating the resident’s allegation by taking reasonable steps to discuss the matter with all the members of staff who could have answered the call. It established that none of its staff members had any recollection of the call. It explained that there were no notes made of the call and this was likely because the call did not specifically reference any actions that needed to be taken on the resident’s account. The landlord also investigated whether there were any recordings of this call and found that calls were not being recorded at the time. This was reasonable as a landlord is not obliged to record calls. Although it is acknowledged that recording calls may be helpful and the landlord has said it hopes to establish call recording in the future.
12. The landlord provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it could not definitively establish which staff member was responsible for the alleged rude behaviour. In the absence of any examples of the behaviour, there are limited steps it could take to investigate the reports or implement practical measures to address the issues. It has, however, apologised to the resident for any upset which may have been caused and taken steps to reiterate the standards expected of its staff members when they take calls and speak to residents, and the importance of keeping records which is reasonable.
13. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging the issues and investigating the resident’s allegations. It has demonstrated its attempt to put things right in view of the lack of evidence by apologising to the resident for any upset caused and taking steps to reiterate the standards expected of its staff members. The landlord has shown that it learnt from the resident’s complaint by acknowledging that it would have been helpful if, on receipt of the complaint and at the earliest opportunity, staff were spoken to, to identify the advisor.
14. It is understandable that the resident may be frustrated that the member of staff responsible for the phone call has not been held accountable. Although the Ombudsman cannot say what actions the landlord would have taken if it had identified the staff member responsible for the call. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the scheme which governs our service) which says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters of employment or other personnel issues.
15. It is not disputed that the resident felt that a member of the landlord’s staff had been rude to him. However, based on the evidence provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that it could not conclude which of its staff members were responsible for the alleged rude behaviour. This Service is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns during the investigation process and that there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

16. The landlord’s complaint policy confirms that it has a two-stage complaint procedure. At stage one, an investigation should take place and a response should be sent within a maximum of 21 calendar days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to be reviewed. The landlord should provide its stage one review response within ten working days. The resident can then escalate their complaint to stage two if they remain dissatisfied. The stage two response should then be issued within 28 calendar days. If there is likely to be a delay at any stage of the complaints process, the landlord should contact the resident and agree a reasonable extension.
17. The resident initially raised his complaint on 27 March 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response on 21 April 2020. This was provided in 24 calendar days (excluding public holidays) which was three days outside of the landlord’s stage one timescales. This was a slight delay, which would not have caused significant inconvenience to the resident. The resident escalated his complaint to the review stage on 24 April 2020, and the landlord provided its review response on 7 May 2020. This response was provided in line with the landlord’s timescales at this stage.
18. The resident escalated his complaint further on 19 May 2020. The landlord provided its stage two response on 30 July 2020. This response was issued 43 calendar days outside of the landlord’s 28-calendar day timeframe for complaints at this stage. This is an unreasonable delay and although the landlord has apologised and advised that this was due to an increase in complaint escalation requests, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had kept the resident updated and advised that its response might be delayed or agreed an alternative timeframe.
19. Similarly, the landlord directed the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in its final response on 7 May 2020. Whilst the resident had been given the correct information about how to escalate his complaint in the landlord’s previous complaint responses, this is likely to have added to the timeframe of the complaint and delayed the resident from approaching this Service which may have caused the resident some inconvenience.
20. The resident has also expressed concern that the landlord has included information about his rent account and lack of payment in its complaint response. It was reasonable for the landlord to make the resident aware of issues related to his rent account, although it would have been helpful for the landlord to address issues related to this separately, as these matters did not form part of the resident’s complaint. This did not significantly impact the resident nor detract from the main aspect of the complaint, but it may have caused some uncertainty for the resident as to whether his complaint had been taken seriously by the landlord.
21. In view of the above, the landlord should offer the resident compensation in recognition of the false information provided in its stage two complaint response, the delays in its complaint handling, and any inconvenience this may have caused. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct information is given to residents and complaint responses are issued in line with the landlord’s Complaints Policy. Furthermore, the landlord’s Complaint policy stages and timescales do not currently comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It is recommended that the landlord review its Complaints Policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code, detailed below.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.
23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

24. The landlord has taken appropriate steps to investigate the report of alleged rude behaviour by its member of staff. Ultimately, it has not been able to establish which member of staff was responsible for the call to implement practical measures to address the issues. The landlord has apologised to the resident and demonstrated that it has taken points of learning from the complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. 
25. The landlord has acted outside of its published timescales when handling the resident’s stage two response, and there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was appropriately informed of any delay. In line with the landlord’s complaint policy, the resident was also provided with incorrect information on how to escalate his complaint which is likely to have increased the overall timescale of the complaint and caused further inconvenience.

Orders

26. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions take place within four weeks:
    1. The landlord is to pay the resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord takes steps to establish a system of record keeping that ensures that it holds adequate records of all contact from a resident (and any representatives), including notes of telephone calls, for audit purposes and so that it can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.
28. It is recommended that the landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the correct information is given to residents and complaint responses are issued in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
29. It is recommended that the landlord review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code. Specifically, this relates to the number of complaint stages and timescales for response. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a landlord’s complaints procedure should include the following:
    1. Logging and acknowledgement of complaint – five working days  
    2. Stage one decision – 10 working days from receipt of complaint – if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage one response should be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
    3. Stage two response – 20 working days from request to escalate – if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.