Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

London Borough of Redbridge (202002349)

Back to Top

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002349

Redbridge Council

27 January 2021 (As amended following review 18.05.21)


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

  1. The complaint refers to:
    1. The Landlord’s response to an accusation of verbal abuse made against the Resident.
    2. The Landlord’s complaint handling of this matter.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Health concerns

  1. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.

 

  1. The Resident’s reports that the accusation made against him has affected his underlying health conditions are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman does not doubt the Resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The Resident should consider taking independent legal advice if he wishes to pursue this option. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the Resident.

Further concerns

  1. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:

“The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

  1. The Resident has expressed further concerns in relation to the actions of his neighbours, CCTV footage and his request for a property transfer. These matters are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction at this stage, as the Landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these aspects. It does not appear from the information received that these issues have been raised as a formal complaint to the Landlord or that the Landlord has issued its final response to such a complaint. The Resident will need to contact the Landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. The Resident may be able to refer a new complaint to The Ombudsman about the recent issues if he remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the Landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

  1. The Resident is a secure tenant of the Landlord.
  2. The Resident emailed the Landlord on 24 September 2019 in relation to his bin collection. He advised that the refuse collectors were not collecting the bins in the middle of the block of flats, which included his own. The Resident stated that he believed that this was due to his neighbour speaking to the refuse collectors about not taking the bags of rubbish and leaving rubbish they had dropped on the ground. 
  3. The Resident stated that the Landlord had called him on 4 October 2019 advising that it had been informed that the Resident had been verbally abusive to the refuse collectors. It had contacted him with this information and had asked why he had been abusive.
  4. On 4 October 2019 the Resident requested that the Landlord forward the email or letter it had received in relation to the alleged abuse towards the refuse collectors. The Landlord responded the same day and stated that the refuse collection staff had advised that the Resident had been abusive towards them. It stated that it would address the matter further internally.
  5. On 20 October 2019 the Resident emailed the Landlord and requested further information in relation to the alleged abuse he had been accused of, specifically the words that had been used.
  6. The Landlord emailed the Resident on 6 November 2019 and advised that it had made contact on 4 October 2019 due to the refuse collectors receiving abuse whilst carrying out their duties. It had not been advised of any specific details of what had been said. The Resident responded on the same day and requested that the Landlord forward a copy of the accusations made against him so that he could seek legal advice on the inaccuracies.
  7. The Landlord responded on 7 November 2019 and advised that it was not aware of any allegation about the Resident being rude towards the refuse collection staff. It had received a report that a resident in his area had been abusive towards the refuse collection staff but no further information had been provided. The Resident responded and asked whether the Landlord had lied to him over the phone on 4 October 2019.
  8. The Landlord responded on 8 November 2019 and stated that it did not accuse the Resident of being abusive towards the refuse collectors. The Resident responded on the same day and said that since the Landlord had stated that the telephone conversation did not happen, he would now be raising a formal complaint.
  9. On 28 January 2020 the Resident emailed the Landlord and stated that he had previously emailed and requested that a complaint be raised in relation to the accusations made against him. He stated that he had not received an update. He said that he was expecting an update in relation to the allegation which the Landlord had said it would investigate. He requested an explanation from the Landlord and also advised that none of his neighbours had received a call advising them of the alleged abuse, with the Landlord had only contacted him. The Resident forwarded this email again on 11 March 2020 having not received a response.
  10. The Landlord’s internal records show that it had contacted the Resident on 11 March 2020 and raised a complaint on his behalf. It stated that the Resident denied the allegation that he had been abusive to the refuse collectors. He expressed dissatisfaction that he had not received a response and was advised that the member of staff handling his case had been absent. The Resident requested information as to who would be managing his case in the meantime.
  11. On 17 March 2020 the Resident emailed Landlord and asked why he had not received a response to the complaint he raised on 8 November 2019 and questioned why he had been advised that the telephone conversation did not happen.
  12. On 19 March 2020 the Landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the Resident and stated the following:
    1. It detailed the previous emails which it had sent and the Resident’s responses.
    2. It stated that it had confirmed that it had not received specific allegations that the Resident himself had been abusive towards the refuse collectors. It had emailed the Resident on two occasions to make this clear and there was nothing to suggest that it was looking into the matter further.
    3. It stated that the matter had been closed for some time as there had been no allegations made specifically against the Resident and no further investigation was needed.
    4. It stated that the complaint was not upheld; if the Resident remained dissatisfied with its response, he could escalate his complaint to the review stage of its internal complaints procedure.
  13. The Resident escalated his complaint on 25 March 2020 and stated that the member of staff told him that he was allegedly abusive. He advised that he was the only tenant who had been contacted about the allegations. He stated that he did not understand why, if the member of staff stated that she would look into the accusation against him, that the Landlord had now stated that no accusation had been made. He requested a letter of apology for the accusation made against him and for the delayed response, as well as compensation for the stress this was causing.
  14. The Landlord issued its stage two complaint response to the Resident on 1 May 2020 and maintained its position that its records showed that no allegations had been made against the Resident. It also confirmed that there had been no investigation following any complaint. It apologised if the Resident believed a complaint had been raised against him and for any distress or upset this may have caused him. It assured the Resident that there was no allegation or complaint to look into, and there was no need for the Resident to be concerned. It explained that it would not uphold the complaint at this stage as there had been no allegation against the Resident and this was outlined in its previous response.

Assessment and findings

Alleged abuse toward refuse collection staff

  1. In its complaint response the Landlord has stated that it had not receive a specific allegation that the Resident himself had been abusive. The telephone conversation on 4 October 2019 was delivered verbally and there is no written evidence to detail what had been discussed on the call. However, the Landlord’s email on 4 October 2019 suggests that the Resident had been advised that he specifically had been contacted in relation to the alleged abuse and that the refuse collectors had advised that the Resident specifically was abusive.
  2. The Landlord has taken steps to explain that the Resident did not need to be concerned as no allegation had been made about him specifically, but it has not acknowledged the evidence which suggests that the Resident was told that he, himself had been abusive. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord to acknowledge that there had been some miscommunication in relation to the alleged abuse in its complaint responses before explaining that there was no open investigation into any alleged abuse.
  3. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord to uphold the complaint on the basis that the evidence suggests the Resident was told that the accusation was directed at him specifically on 4 October 2019. It would also have been appropriate for the Landlord to apologise for any false information provided by its staff at the time once it had established that no accusation had been directly made about the Resident and it would not be investigating the matter further.
  4. It is noted that the initial correspondence informing the Resident of the allegation may have been a result of unclear internal communication about the accusation – which was not directed at a single resident. The resulting complaint response shows that the Landlord has not fully investigated the information available. It is recommended that the Landlord takes steps to improve its record keeping, ensuring that evidence of any communication between the Landlord and its residents is accessible to relevant staff members involved in complaint handling to prevent information being missed. 
  5. There has been service failure by the Landlord in respect of its handling of the Resident’s concerns about a false accusation made against him. The Landlord has taken reasonable steps to advise the Resident that no accusation had been made specifically towards him, and that no further action had taken place. It apologised if the Resident believed a complaint had been raised against him. Although, the Landlord has not fully acknowledged that the Resident had been initially misinformed and led to believe that an accusation had been made directly about him.
  6. In view of this, taking into account the time and effort it has taken to resolve the matter, the Landlord should write to the Resident to apologise for the information it had provided on 4 October 2019. It should also offer an award of compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and distress this misinformation may have caused him. It is recommended that the Landlord takes steps to ensure it has the correct information regarding any accusations – as it would, for example, when considering a report of antisocial behaviour from its residents –  before contacting any suspected perpetrators, to prevent any miscommunication in the future.

Complaint handling

  1. The Landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it has two formal stages. At stage one, the Landlord should issue a response within ten working days. If the Resident remains dissatisfied, the complaint can be escalated to stage two, where the Landlord should provide a written response within 20 working days. The Landlord would be expected to address each aspect of the Resident’s complaint in its complaint responses. 
  2. In its stage one complaint response, the Landlord had acknowledged that one aspect of the Resident’s complaint was in relation to the delay in receiving a response. The Resident stated that he raised his complaint on 8 November 2019 and was dissatisfied that he had not received a response until the complaint acknowledgement email on 17 March 2020. The Resident’s email on 8 November 2019 stated that he “would now be raising a complaint”. It would have been helpful for the Landlord to raise the complaint on the Resident’s behalf on this date due to the expression of dissatisfaction within the email, although it was reasonable that the Landlord did not do this as the Resident did not specifically request the Landlord to raise the complaint on his behalf at this stage. However, the Landlord has not acted appropriately as it failed to address this aspect of the Resident’s complaint in its complaint responses.
  3. The Resident sent a further email to chase the Landlord for a response to his complaint on 28 January 2020. It is noted that this email was sent to a member of staff who the Landlord later explained had been absent from work. As the Resident had not received an acknowledgement email from the Landlord in relation to his complaint, it would have likely been more beneficial for the Resident to contact the Landlord directly through its customer advice centre or using the online web complaint service rather than directly to a member of staff. Some degree of staff absence is to be expected and the Landlord should reasonably make provision for managing this and ensuring a consistent service for its tenants.  The Landlord should review its record keeping ensuring that wherever possible it can provide a seamless service should members of its staff fall absent.
  4. The Landlord has taken steps to respond to the Resident’s complaint in a timely manner after it had been raised on 11 March 2020. It is noted that there was a slight delay in providing its stage two response and this response was delivered six working days outside of the 20-day timescale as outlined in the Landlord’s Complaint Policy. The Landlord has not addressed this further delay in its response, although this delay is unlikely to have significantly impacted the Resident as the Landlord maintained its previous position in relation to the false accusation.
  5. There has been service failure by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling. The Landlord has not addressed a key aspect of the Resident’s complaint which was in relation to the delay in receiving a response. The failure to address this aspect of the Resident’s complaint is likely to have caused the Resident some inconvenience as he believed that the matter should have been resolved sooner. In view of this, it is recommended that the Landlord takes steps to improve its record keeping, to ensure that relevant members of staff can access information should some of its staff members fall absent in order to prevent delays in correspondence. The Landlord should also offer an award of compensation for the inconvenience caused by its failure to address aspects of the Resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its response to an accusation of verbal abuse made against the Resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the Landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The Landlord has clearly explained that no accusation had been made directly against the Resident and that no further investigation had taken place. The Landlord has not acknowledged that it had provided the Resident with incorrect information initially, and then went on to incorrectly contradict its own initial correspondence with the Resident.
  2. The Landlord has not addressed the Resident’s concerns in relation to why it had not provided a response to his initial complaint. It would have been appropriate for the Landlord to explain the reasons why his previous emails had not been responded to and offer an apology that this communication had not been addressed sooner. The Landlord should have a process in place to ensure that staff absence does not affect correspondence with its residents

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders that the following actions are carried out within four weeks:
    1. The Landlord is to pay the Resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint responses not accurately reflecting the earlier correspondence
    2. The landlord is to pay the Resident £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failure to handle the stage 1 complaint correctly
    3. The landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident, acknowledging that it originally provided inaccurate information about an allegation of verbal abuse, which caused him distress.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the Landlord takes steps to ensure it has all the relevant information regarding any accusations before contacting any suspected perpetrators, to prevent any miscommunication in the future.
  2. It is recommended that the Landlord takes steps to improve its record keeping, ensuring that evidence of any communication between the Landlord and its residents is accessible to relevant staff members involved in complaint handling to prevent information being missed. 
  3. The Landlord should also consider introducing a process to ensure that relevant members of staff can access information if there is any staff absence.
  4. The Landlord should consider taking steps to complete written records of any telephone correspondence with its residents to ensure that evidence can be reviewed if needed.