Epping Forest District Council (202126995)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126995

Epping Forest District Council

14 July 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:
    1. A request from the resident.
    2. The formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. On 24 September 2021 the resident reported an incident to the landlord regarding his neighbour’s gardener, stating that he swore at him, which he had reported to the police. The resident has stated that when he spoke with the landlord, he asked that when it wrote to the neighbour about the incident it should say that it was the police that informed it of this, rather than the resident himself.  This was because he did not want the neighbour to know that he had reported it to the landlord, and felt reference to the police would deflect from that fact.
  2. The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2020, saying that despite the landlord promising on a number of occasions that it would state in the letter to the neighbour it was the police that informed it of the incident, it did not do so. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 October 2021.
  3. The landlord provided a stage one response on 1 November 2021. It said that as part of the investigation the telephone conversations the resident had with it were listened to, and these demonstrated that the resident had repeatedly been advised that the landlord had not revealed to the neighbour that it was him that had reported the incident. It confirmed that his name was not mentioned in the letter to the neighbour.
  4. The resident requested an escalation to stage two on 17 November 2021, stating that the complaint was not that his name had been mentioned, but that the letter had failed to state that it was the police that had advised the landlord about the incident, which the landlord had promised it would include. The landlord responded to this escalation request on 18 November 2021, saying the complaint would be sent for review.
  5. On 26 November 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident, noting that the stage one response had found that the resident’s request had been carried out and ‘there was no case to answer’. While the resident disagreed with this, he had provided no evidence or reasons for this disagreement. Therefore, it had found that there was no merit in conducting a review. It referred the resident to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

  1. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has said that he is annoyed that he was promised the letter would mention the police, but this did not happen. He wanted the landlord to say it was the police that told it about the incident, as otherwise his neighbour would have been able to guess it was in fact him.
  2. The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the letter that was sent to the neighbour, which clearly states that the police had advised the landlord about the incident. The resident is not mentioned. Therefore, the landlord carried out the resident’s request, and there is no failing on the part of the landlord here.
  3. However, the stage one response did not adequately address the issue that the resident had raised, namely, that the police were not mentioned in the letter as per his request. Given that this had in fact been done, the landlord should have clearly stated this, reassuring the resident that the letter to the neighbour said that the police had informed it of the incident with the gardener.
  4. While the stage one letter did offer reassurances that the landlord had not revealed to the neighbour that it was the resident that had reported the incident, this was not the complaint that had been put to it.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy as was in place at the time of the matters concerned stated that if a complainant could show that there is good reason that it had missed something important, then it would carry out a stage two review. In this case, the resident again made it clear in his stage two request that he was complaining about the letter to the neighbour not referring to the police, and had not complained that it mentioned his name. Despite the resident setting out his reasons for requesting the review (which were relevant given the landlord had not addressed the full complaint in its stage one response), the landlord declined to escalate it on the basis that no reasons or evidence were provided. This was inaccurate, and so not in line with its policy.
  6. The failings in the complaint handling caused the resident frustration, and additional time and trouble pursing the matter with this Service. Therefore, an order for remedy is made below, with reference to the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance which sets out amounts of £250 and above in cases where there has been a failure to address all key elements of complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. No maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the request from the resident.
    2. Maladministration in its handling of the formal complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord carried out the resident’s request. However, it did not provide a full response to the complaint that was raised, and unreasonably declined to escalate the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident £250 for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the failings in the complaint handling.