Salix Homes Limited (202109487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109487

Salix Homes Limited

14 March 2022

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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative who had attended her home to carry out a repair. 

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. An operative attended in June 2021 for a window repair. Following the appointment, the resident called the landlord to express her concerns about the operative’s conduct. She said the operative had made her feel very uncomfortable and had sworn at her during the appointment, and consequently she had asked him to leave her home. The landlord sought statements from the operative and a member of staff who was on the phone to the operative for some of the appointment. It subsequently informed the resident that her behaviour had been unacceptable as she had displayed intimidating behaviour which included filming the operative against their wishes, and therefore, it had placed a warning marker against the resident’s tenancy for a period of 13 months.
4. The resident subsequently told the landlord that she was still awaiting a response to her complaint concerning the operative’s behaviour; she also raised concerns about the warning marker placed against her. The landlord did not uphold the complaint. It said that it has spoken to the resident’s witness (a neighbour) and they had not corroborated the resident’s version of events. It concluded that based upon the evidence provided by its operative, member of staff, and the resident’s witness, there was no evidence to corroborate the resident’s account of what had happened.
5. In the resident’s correspondence with this Service, she said the landlord dismissed her witness, and had ignored her version of events regarding the incident.

Assessment and findings

6. The landlord’s warning marker procedure sets out that if an employee feels a customer should be identified as posing a risk to employees, they should complete a warning marker request form and forward it internally for authorisation. The landlord must notify residents within 14 calendar days of its decision to place a warning marker against their record.
7. In response to the resident raising concerns about the conduct of the operative, the landlord sought statements from the operative and the member of staff that was on the phone to the operative during the appointment, both of whom denied the allegations that had been made. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take, to ensure that it obtained accounts from the staff involved and carried out a thorough and impartial investigation into the matter.
8. Following this, the landlord decided to place a warning marker against the resident’s tenancy. The main reasons for this appear to be because the operative had reported that the resident had filmed them without consent and had displayed intimidating behaviour. It is acknowledged that the landlord has a duty to protect its staff from unreasonable behaviour, and therefore, it was entitled to consider placing a warning marker against the resident’s tenancy in line with its policy.
9. However, the landlord was also required to respond to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the operative. The resident initially raised her concerns on 16 June, but it was not until 4 August 2021 that the landlord responded to the complaint, significantly exceeding its 10 working day target in respect of stage one formal complaints. In the intervening period, the landlord issued its warning letter to the resident in respect of the warning marker. The resident also had to chase the landlord for a response to her complaint about the operative on several occasions. It is therefore understandable that the resident did not feel that she had been treated fairly or that her concerns had been adequately investigated.
10. After initially declining to do so, the landlord agreed to contact the resident’s witness to the incident. This was appropriate and in line with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code which sets out that landlords should carry out complaint investigations in an impartial manner, seeking sufficient reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings can be made. However, no evidence of the discussion with the witness has been provided for this investigation. This was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping. Without this record, it is not possible to ascertain what the witness told the landlord, and therefore, that the conclusions reached by the landlord in relation to this matter was justified and reasonable.
11. As part of her complaint the resident stated that other contractors said the operative was “highly strung”. In its complaint response the landlord said it had spoken to the contractors and they had denied the allegations. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of the conversation is says it had with the contractors. While the alleged comment from the contractors would not have necessarily proved that there was merit to the resident’s concerns about the operative, there were further failures in the landlord’s record keeping in respect of its investigation into the resident’s complaint.
12. The main focus of the resident’s complaint was in respect of how her report about the operative was handled, and as outlined above, there were failures in the landlord’s handling of this matter. It is also not clear from the evidence provided whether the warning marker was warranted in this case, or that the warning marker procedure was adequately followed in relation to the review panel process and the timescale the marker was applied for. It is therefore recommended that the landlord reviews the warning marker in line with the provisions of its warning marker procedure and confirms to the resident whether this still applies.

Determination

13. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative.

Orders and recommendations

14. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports about the operative.
    2. Review its response to the complaint about the operative and its record keeping in this case and take steps to ensure the same service failures do not arise again, for example by carrying out staff training. The findings of the review should be provided to both the resident and this Service.
15. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the warning marker in line with the provisions of its warning marker procedure and confirms to the resident whether this still applies. The landlord should do this within four weeks of the date of this report.