Tuntum Housing Association Limited (202108569)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108569

Tuntum Housing Association Limited

15 June 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about:
   1. the conduct of its staff;
   2. the offer of compensation.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident had an excluded licence agreement from 2 November 2020 to occupy a furnished room within the property.
3. The landlord has a policy setting out its approach to anti-social behaviour (ASB) on its website. It defines ASB as “conduct that has caused or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to any person “, that its residents should enjoy quiet occupation of their homes and that its staff understand that it takes ASB seriously.
4. The landlord’s complaints procedure sets out that it will consider complaints about the actions of its staff and that it will answer complaints at its first stage within 10 working days and within 20 working days at its final stage.
5. The landlord’s compensation procedure says that compensation is payable when it identifies a service failure that has caused its resident to suffer loss or inconvenience.

Summary of events

6. The landlord’s records show that, after reading several tweets regarding its service provision at the building where the resident lives, it carried out a visit on 6 April 2021 to obtain further information regarding allegations of bullying and intimidation by its staff.
7. During that visit, it spoke to the resident who recounted her experiences concerning two of the landlord’s staff with regard to intimidation, lack of support and that she experienced panic attacks when she heard the voices or footsteps of certain members of staff.
8. The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 April 2021, it advised that it was investigating the allegations she had made and requested that she attend a meeting on 16 April 2021. It advised that following the meeting a witness statement may be prepared, which it would provide for her review to ensure that the contents were correct.
9. The resident attended the meeting on 16 April 2021 and recounted her experiences of the behaviour of the landlord’s staff. She expressed that she had stopped using one of its services in December 2020, that she had made and withdrawn the complaint about the facilities at the building and treatment of staff, that she had experienced threats and that she had concerns regarding the use of her sensitive information.
10. She advised that as a result of the conduct of its staff, she had cancelled sessions with her counsellor and that she had difficulty when trying to study. Before the meeting ended, the landlord asked the resident to state what support it could offer and later that day,  sent her copies of the meeting notes for her review.
11. The resident amended the statement and returned it to the landlord on 19 April 2021 advising that she had lost faith in its staff and requested that the landlord:
    1. provide private counselling to help her cope with the trauma she had experienced
    2. provide the ten sessions of the English course that she had missed so that she can attend university as planned.
12. In response, the landlord notified the resident on 19 April 2021 that it would consider her request and requested further information about the functional English sessions that the resident was undertaking. 
13. The resident supplied further information on 21 April 2021 regarding the English course that she had undertaken. She supplied evidence that she had missed classes and explained she was not prepared to postpone her plans to attend university because of her experiences at the property.
14. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day 21 April 2021 to acknowledge her email and advised that it would discuss the contents when it met with her on the following day (22 April 2021).
15. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2021 following the meetings she had attended with the landlord. She explained that:
    1. she had already completed the courses that it had offered and that attending those courses would not assist with her plans to attend university
    2. she felt that the landlord was not taking responsibility for the actions of its staff
    3. the gesture of good will of £500 was not sufficient to put things right
    4. she requested that the landlord confirm whether it had treated her concerns as a complaint and requested its response so she could obtain external adjudication.
16. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 April 2021 to advise that it had taken her concerns seriously as it had obtained her view on the issues that had happened as part of its investigation. Furthermore, it apologised that she was unhappy with the actions it had taken and confirmed that it had registered her concerns as a complaint.
17. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 28 April 2021 explaining that it had considered her concerns at its final stage due to the gravity of the issues complained about. It apologised to the resident and concluded that:
    1. Its internal investigation regarding the allegations of harassment that it had received about two members of its staff was underway – two members of staff had been suspended
    2. the witness statement she had provided was part of the investigation
    3. once the investigation was concluded, it would provide her with the outcome
    4. following its meeting with her on 16 April 2021, it had offered a good will gesture of £500 towards the cost of the functional skills course
    5. the resident had declined this offer as she wanted the landlord to meet the entire cost of the English course
    6. it had agreed to look at other streams of funding that was available, however, it was informed that an application had already been made and the resident was on the waiting list 
    7. it would continue to look for an external counselling service
    8. it recognised that the experience may have impacted her mental health and offered the gesture of good will of £500 towards the cost of the functional skills course, recognising that its service had not met the required standard
    9. it was working to improve the service and that it had employed three new members of staff including a new service manager.
18. The resident remained dissatisfied and emailed the landlord on 30 April 2021. She stated that the complaint response contained errors. She clarified that:
    1. she had requested that the landlord pay for an English course so that she could obtain the necessary English qualification to enable her to commence her Masters qualification in September 2021
    2. she did not request for the landlord to pay towards a functional skills course as that course did not start until September 2021.

She disputed that the new staff that had been appointed were as a direct result of her complaint. She advised that at the investigation meeting she was informed that due to the General Data Protection Regulations, she was not entitled to know the outcome of the investigation. She confirmed she would like to know the outcome of the investigation and requested a copy of the meeting notes.

19. In response on the same day (30 April 2021), the landlord apologised for the confusion in its response and acknowledged that the new staff it had appointed was to improve its service delivery. It provided copies of the notes of the investigation meeting and confirmed that it would share the outcome of the disciplinary investigation of its two staff.
20. It is noted that on 14 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident providing the outcome of the disciplinary investigation – that formal disciplinary action had been taken.
21. The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service on 15 July 2021.

Assessment and findings

22. The Ombudsman’s role includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed its policies and procedures and acted appropriately. It is important to note that it is not the purpose of this report to assess the credibility of the reports made by the resident. The purpose of the report is to consider the landlord’s response to the reports it received, and to the formal complaint, and consider whether its response was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. 
23. It is clear from the resident’s submissions that she has been distressed by the actions of the landlord’s staff. The resident’s feelings are acknowledged. However, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider how the landlord assessed her concerns and to determine whether its approach was appropriate and proportionate to the issues being reported and the evidence available to it at the time. With regard to the resident’s comments about the potential adverse impact on her health, it should be noted that the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.

the conduct of its staff

24. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: be fair, put things right and learn form outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified
25. The landlord responded promptly to the concerns it read on social media regarding the conduct of its staff, by attending the site and speaking to residents about their concerns. Its initial assessment was that the conduct of its staff fell below that expected of its employees so it acted fairly when it took the position that it was necessary to investigate those concerns under its employee’s code of conduct and initiate disciplinary proceedings.
26. The landlord had a person-centred approach as it invited the resident to a meeting where it took a statement of her experiences in April 2021, shared the notes taken at the meeting and provided the resident with the opportunity to review the contents to ensure that it correctly represented her recollections. This was reasonable and appropriate actions by the landlord as it gave the resident the opportunity to give a full and proper account of her experiences and for the landlord to use the opportunity to establish whether the resident had any additional requirements that it could support her with.
27. Looking at the available evidence, the landlord carried out a prompt investigation into the resident’s concerns. It commenced its investigation in April 2021 and concluding its disciplinary procedure regarding the two members of staff by June 2021. Furthermore, it dealt with the resident’s concerns at the final stage of the complaint process demonstrating that it considered that the resident’s concerns should be dealt with at a senior level.
28. The landlord initially informed the resident that it could not share the outcome of the disciplinary investigation and in its final response, it corrected its position advising that it would share the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. After the complaint process, it informed the resident of the outcome of the disciplinary investigation. The landlord has demonstrated that it has been open about its investigation that it carried out by providing the resident with the outcome of the disciplinary hearing into the conduct of its staff.
29. From what can be seen, the landlord has demonstrated that it has acknowledged and appropriately investigated the resident’s concerns. The landlord has set out its position by taking  formal action against two members of its staff, therefore the landlord responded  reasonably and appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

the offer of compensation

30. The resident is unhappy with the good will gesture of £500 offered by the landlord as her preferred outcome was for the provision of counselling services from an external provider and that as she had missed 10 sessions of her English course for the landlord pay for a replacement English course which would enable her to start university in September 2021.
31. In assessing the issue of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, the amount of time and effort expanded on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord actions or inactions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident.
32. The landlord’s good will gesture of £500 was reaffirmed in the final complaint response where it explained that it had made the offer as it recognised that the resident had been impacted by her experiences and the good will gesture was to assist with the cost of finding another English course. The landlord demonstrated that it had acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the need to find and complete an alternative course to meet the requirements to start her university course.
33. The landlord’s complaint procedure explains that it will make an offer of compensation where there has been serious service failure and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance considers that awards between £250 to £750 are appropriate where there has been serious failure which has not had a detrimental impact on the resident.
34. The landlord’s gesture of good will of £500 was reasonable considering the distress to the resident and demonstrated that the landlord had recognised that the behaviour of two members of its staff had impacted the resident. The landlord met with the resident to obtain a complete understanding of her experiences, apologised for the service failure and offered to source external counselling services and functional English sessions which demonstrates that it had accepted responsibility. 
35. The landlord has advised that it has appointed new staff including a service manager which should improve the quality of the service that it offers.
36. In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the gesture of good will offered, in light of the facts of the case and the available evidence and takes the view that the landlord’s offer is reasonable as it conducted appropriate investigations, communicated regularly and took formal action promptly against its staff to address the problems in its workforce.

Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the identified service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the conduct of its staff
38. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the offer of compensation.

Reasons

39. The landlord has evidenced that it carried out an appropriate investigation following the allegations it received regarding the conduct of two members of its staff, took formal action and communicated the outcome to the resident.
40. The landlord has made a gesture of good will in recognition of the impact of the distress and offered to source counselling services for the resident.

Recommendations

41. If it has not already done so, the landlord to reoffer the gesture of good will of £500 it offered in its final response.