Impact Housing Association Limited (202106764)

REPORT

COMPLAINT

Impact Housing

17 March 2021

202106764

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the service he received from a Customer Service Agent (CSA) during a telephone call on 2 February 2021.

Summary of events

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat.

 

3. The resident called the landlord on 2 February 2021 to enquire about his gas safety check as he had received a letter about this. During the call the fire alarm was sounding in the block. The CSA asked the resident for his address to be able to establish what assistance could be provided. The resident was upset by the alarm sounding and the way in which the CSA was responding to his queries, the call was terminated by the resident.

 

4. On 2 and 3 February 2021, the resident spoke to the landlord to make a formal complaint about the way the call was handled; during these conversations the resident referred to his gas safety checks, the impact on him of the sounding of the fire alarm and the behaviour of the CSA. He raised concerns about comments made about his mental health.

 

5. The landlord investigated the complaint by interviewing the CSA about their recollection of events and by reviewing the available notes. In summary, the CSA was unable to obtain the resident’s address to be able to provide relevant advice about the gas safety checks, they were concerned that the resident talked about removing the fire alarm from the wall due to its continuous ringing. They responded to a question about how they would react if they had mental health issues and they responded by explaining the conversation was not about the CSA but about the resident’s situation.

 

6. The landlord issued its Stage 1 response on 9 February 2021, setting out its understanding of the resident’s complaint that the service he received was poor and unprofessional. The response set out the investigation of the complaint including the landlord’s understanding of what occurred during the call on 2 February based on the conversations with the resident and with the CSA.  The landlord concluded that the CSA had intended to manage the call in a professional manner; given the resident’s upset and the circumstances of the call it offered an apology for the distress experienced by the resident.

 

7. The resident was unhappy with the Stage 1 response, as they disagreed with the CSA’s recollection of events, in particular the CSA’s version of the conversation about mental health issues, he wanted an apology directly from the CSA. The landlord spoke to the resident about his escalation request on 12 February. The landlord discussed the complaint with the CSA on 22 February 2021.

 

8. The landlord issued its Stage 2 response on 15 February 2021 and explained the steps taken to investigate his escalation request and his concerns. The landlord understood the resident disputed the CSA’s recollection of the conversation regarding mental health issues. It explained that this was addressed in the stage 1 response and an apology had been offered for the resident’s upset. The landlord explained that as it does not record phone calls it could not say whether the CSA made any comment about the resident’s mental health.

 

9. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said that he wasn’t happy with the apology from the landlord, the CSA called the resident a liar on the phone, and he wanted to receive a direct apology as a solution to his complaint.

Assessment and findings

10. In reviewing the information provided by the landlord and the resident, the Ombudsman appreciates the resident was upset with what happened during the call on 2 February 2021. In the absence of any call recording, the exact details of the conversation remain unclear, therefore the Ombudsman is unable to determine what was said during the call. In these circumstances the Ombudsman’s role is to look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

 

11. It is clear from the call notes and interview notes that there was some form of miscommunication between the resident and the member of staff. Both parties have confirmed the purpose of the call was to raise a query about a gas safety check as well as to raise concerns about the fire alarm sounding. It is understood that the fire alarm stopped ringing and at that point the resident ended the call.  There is a dispute about what was said about the mental health of the resident.  In reviewing the landlord’s formal response to the resident’s complaint, it investigated the matter by obtaining information from the resident and the CSA about their recollection of events. The landlord did so at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process. It is noted that the landlord did not speak to the CSA until after the date of the stage 2 response as they were on leave. Whilst a landlord is expected to carry out all its investigations prior to sending out its response, the interview notes broadly reflect the previous conversation with the CSA and supports the landlord’s view in its final response.

 

12. The landlord took the resident’s complaint seriously and took steps to establish as far as it was able, what happened during the call. Whilst it was unable to confirm if anything inappropriate was said to the resident, it apologised as they were evidently upset by the experience. 

 

13. The landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns in its complaint response. It also acted reasonably by apologising for the service that the resident received and the inconvenience that was caused.

Determination

14. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect to its handling of the resident’s complaint about the service he received from a Customer Service Agent (CSA) during a telephone call on 2 February 2021.