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

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (202111975)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111975

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

7 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:
    1. The resident’s reports of an incident involving a member of the landlord’s staff.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The resident’s property is a flat situated in a building with similar properties.
  2. The resident is complaining about a third-party company’s employee. For clarity, the member of staff referenced in this report is a third-party contractor employed by the landlord to provide repair and maintenance services to the resident’s building
  3. On 16 April 2021, an alleged incident occurred between the resident and one of the landlord’s staff. The resident said when she approached another worker about a lighting issue during that conversation, a member of the landlord’s staff verbally abused and became aggressive towards the resident and made her feel intimidated.
  4. On 19 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about the event informing the landlord that this was not the first incident with that member of staff. The resident explained that the manager she was speaking to informed her that the member of staff would be spoken to and relocated to another location, but she was unhappy with this as she believed that the employee committed a sackable offence and therefore further action should have been taken. The resident also said that she was left traumatised, depressed and fearful of the member of staff and other staff members after the incident. The complaint, however, was sent to an incorrect email address, which was provided to her by another employee of the landlord and therefore the landlord did not respond to this initial complaint email. 
  5. On 29 April 2021 the landlord received an email from the police regarding the incident. The police informed the landlord that the resident had reported the incident to them, but the resident did not want to make any allegations to the police against the member of staff involved.
  6. On 4 May 2021, the manager who was present at the incident informed the landlord of the incident but the manager did not agree with the resident’s account of what happened. The manager stated that during a conversation with the resident, the worker walked past and stated to “please mind your business and leave me alone”. The manager recalled asking the operative to keep walking but did not recall anything else being said. The manager confirmed that the worker had been relocated away from the site.
  7. On 13 May 2021, the resident forwarded her complaint to the correct department and informed the landlord that she had been provided with an incorrect email address which delayed her complaint being handled. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 May 2021.
  8. On 20 May 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response advising that it upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised that the incident occurred and for the behaviour of the member of staff, which it said fell below the standard expected. It confirmed that the member of staff had been reminded of their interaction skills and duties towards residents. The landlord informed the resident that the member of staff had been relocated away from her building. The landlord also acknowledged the delay in the complaint response and apologised stating that there had been a backlog in its system and therefore it was not passed on; the landlord reassured the resident that this would not occur again. On the same day the resident requested for an escalation of the complaint, as she felt that the landlord should have dismissed the worker or relocated them, further away.
  9. On 25 May 2021, the resident and landlord had a phone conversation. The resident expressed that she was unhappy the member of staff had been moved to the building next door. She felt that the member of staff should either be sacked or moved to a different area. The landlord advised that the manager present did not hear the alleged abusive comments and that it could not sack the member of staff, nor could it move the member of staff to a different area because it did not know about the personal circumstances of the member of staff.
  10. The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 3 June 2021. The landlord advised that the manager present at the time of the incident did not hear the alleged comments; but, as a resolution, it decided to relocate the member of staff away from the building and therefore the resident and member of staff should not cross paths. It agreed the worker’s behaviour did not meet the landlord’s expectations. The landlord requested that in the future, the resident does not approach employees working at her building and instead report any concerns directly to the landlord. The landlord apologised for the incident but advised that it felt it had implemented the best solution. The landlord found no service failures in the complaint handling at stage one of its process, as it had contacted the relevant parties, investigated the incident and found a reasonable resolution.
  11. The resident emailed the landlord on 7 June 2021 and she was unhappy with the term ‘repair’ being used in the complaint response as there was no repair reported and found the language used to be incorrect. She was also unhappy with the use of the world ‘altercation’ to describe the incident involving the employee. The resident did not find this an appropriate term as that would suggest both parties involved were arguing, which she denied happened. The resident stated that the incident was an assault. The resident found that it was unacceptable for the member of staff to be relocated close to her building as she lived in fear and was intimidated by the member of staff. The resident did not appreciate that the landlord asked her to no longer confront the operatives directly and instead contact the landlord to report any repairs or concerns. The resident was also unhappy that the landlord did not address her complaint about being given the wrong email address. 
  12. The resident emailed her local councillor on 18 July 2021. The resident was unhappy with the delay to the landlord acknowledging her complaint as that this delay meant that she could not request for the landlord to obtain the CCTV of the incident. The resident informed her local councillor that her freedom of information request, which had asked for the surname and employment status of the member of staff, had been rejected by the landlord. The resident was advised by the landlord to contact the police to gain this information and she was unhappy with this response.
  13. On 21 July 2021, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had received an email from the local councillor. The landlord said it had spoken with the contractor who confirmed that the member of staff concerned was off work; but upon the member of staff’s return, they would be relocated away from the area and therefore this should fully resolve the concerns of the resident. It also stated it would be inappropriate to discuss the member of staff’s employment status as this was confidential. The landlord assured the resident that her report was being taken seriously and was being addressed through the formal processes and apologised for the incident.
  14. On 4 January 2022, in an email to the Ombudsman, the resident stated she was unhappy with the actions of the landlord as she felt that any actions were taken too late, she was provided with contradictory information, and had been left feeling sick and helpless. The resident is unhappy with how the landlord has handled the complaint as a whole.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure states that at stage one of a complaint an acknowledgement of the complaint should be sent within five working days and a response within ten working days. At stage two of the complaint, an acknowledgement should be sent within five working days and a full response within twenty days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that she has been suffering with stress, worry and anxiety since the event occurred. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her medical conditions, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore we cannot comment on this matter further. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which says the Ombudsman will not investigate 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.
  2. In the resident’s submissions to the Ombudsman, she stated she wanted the member of staff responsible to be held accountable for their actions and reprimanded accordingly and dismissed. It is outside The Ombudsman’s role consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters. This is in accordance with paragraph 39 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. This Service, when investigating a complaint about a landlord, will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will only comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. We can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff, and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do, however, is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members or dismiss them. This Service would not order the landlord to disclose any personal information about its staff such as their surname or employment status in response to a complaint as this information is confidential.
  3. The resident has raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request. This aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as complaints relating to data protection and freedom of information fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (www.ico.org.uk). Therefore, this investigation report will not consider the landlord’s handling of the tenant’s FOI request.

The resident’s reports of an incident with a member of the landlord’s staff.

  1. When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, it would be expected that the landlord carry out a thorough investigation into these concerns and, if appropriate, take reasonable steps in order to mitigate any future instances. The Ombudsman is unable to make a determination on whether the accusations made by the resident were indeed true, because the circumstances of the incident are disputed, with different accounts of the events that occurred. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff. The landlord however, is restricted in its actions as the worker was employed by a third–party contractor, so had limited influence in the disciplinary process for this company.
  2. The landlord advised the resident that the member of staff had been relocated to a different area and therefore this should stop any further incidents. The resident was unhappy with this as she had since run into the member of staff and feared that they may approach her in the future. The resident wanted the employee to be relocated further away. The Ombudsman can understand the reasons why the resident wanted the member of staff to be moved as far away as possible from her building. However, it is not clear what the employee’s personal circumstances were and if the employee could reasonably travel to other locations. The landlord acted reasonably by moving the member of staff to a different building to limit the contact between the two parties; this was an appropriate action for the landlord to implement, to ensure that further incidents did not occur. The landlord was not obliged to move the member of staff further away and it may not have been practical for it to do so in view of the circumstances of the employee and the rest of the contractor’s staff who could be affected by needing to swap work areas.
  3. It is this Service’s understanding that the member of staff is no longer employed by the landlord’s contractor. Therefore, the landlord would not need to take any further action regarding the employee’s location.
  4. The resident found that the landlord’s request for her to not approach workers at her building was an incorrect statement, stating she had been provided with the contact details of the worker’s’ manager. It was reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident not to approach the contractor’s employees directly; this ensures that further incidents do not occur with any worker and that any concerns or repairs are reported via the correct channels to ensure that they are resolved. Therefore, this is a reasonable request for the landlord to make and this Service encourages the resident to report matters in this way to ensure that any concerns can be addressed appropriately.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The resident complained that an employee had provided her with an incorrect email address meaning her complaint was delayed in being received. Whilst it is understandable that the resident is unhappy with this, this delay did not significantly impact the investigation or the outcome of the complaint. Based on the evidence received, it appears the resident did not follow up this complaint with the landlord until four weeks later when speaking to a housing officer. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer an apology as a form of redress and it is not required to do anything further in respect of this issue. Upon receiving the complaint, the landlord provided a stage one response within five working days, as per its complaint policy requirements; and at stage two, the landlord responded within seven working days in line with its complaint policy. Whilst it is understandable that the delay to the initial complaint would have been frustrating to the resident, once it received the complaint the landlord handled it within its policy requirements as set out above. The landlord apologised for this error and stated that this error would be fed back to the relevant department. The delay did not impact the decision for the staff member to be relocated away from the resident’s property. Therefore, it is reasonable for the landlord to apologise for the delay and ensure it would not happen again.
  2. The resident also mentioned that the delay in the landlord receiving the complaint meant that no CCTV could be requested from the day of the incident. Whilst CCTV may have proved useful to the landlord’s investigation, CCTV may not have recorded the incident, and if it did, it may not have recorded what was said and therefore, the incident could still be disputed.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to our investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaints satisfactorily regarding:
    1. The resident’s reports of an incident involving a member of the landlord’s staff.
    2. The associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord acted appropriately in the circumstances and removed the member of staff from the resident’s building; the landlord also apologised for the member of staff’s conduct. It was also reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to report any further concerns to it directly so her concerns can be handled appropriately through the proper channels. The landlord handled the complaint in line with its complaint policy once it received it and apologised for the delay initially due to the resident being given the wrong email address, which was an appropriate response in the circumstances.