Epping Forest District Council (202214043)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214043

Epping Forest District Council

January 2023

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 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 reports of its contractors’ behaviour, and the subsequent compensation offered.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord a bungalow. It has recorded mental health vulnerabilities for him. The complaint concerns operatives of a company the landlord uses to perform repairs in its properties, and the contracted company provided the stage one and final stage complaint responses on the landlords behalf. Operatives of the contractor will be referred to as contractors throughout the report.
3. On 28 June 2022, two contractors of the landlord attended the resident’s property to perform a repair. He reported that he was dissatisfied that one of the contractors placed dirty work tools on his draining board, and he requested that they were removed. He reports their manner was unprofessional, and they were rude to him when he questioned their lack of Covid-19 PPE and requested they wear face masks, which he reports they aggressively refused to do. He reports that they performed an unnecessary task in order to remain at his property for longer and described their manner as taunting and teasing.
4. The resident informed the contractors he was recording the visit on his mobile phone, and he reports the contractors started using derogatory hand signals to one another, and miming laughter, to avoid speaking. He reported feeling unsafe in his home and reported the incident to the police.
5. The resident complained to the landlord during a phone call on the same day of the contractors’ visit, regarding their behaviour. He was upset with the contractors’ overall attitude towards Covid-19 and that they had reportedly aggressively refused to wear masks. It arranged to call him on 5 July 2022 to listen to the recording that he had taken. However, it was not satisfied that it could identify the ‘finer details’ of the recording during a call, and arranged to visit him on 29 July 2022 to listen to the recording.
6. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 17 August 2022 upheld the resident’s complaint, and found one of its contractors to be at fault and stated their behaviour fell below its expected standard. It acknowledged the events had been distressing for him and apologised for this. It also thanked him for providing the recording, and informed him that the contractor was being investigated and appropriate action was being taken.
7. The resident then escalated his complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure on 24 August 2022, because he was seeking compensation for the alarm, distress, anxiety and trauma caused to him by its contractors. He explained he would not feel safe having members of the contracted company in his property without an operative of the landlord’s being present in the future. He further reported that he had attempted to escalate the complaint to an operative of the contractor, but was met with obstruction and excuses for the contractors’ behaviour.
8. The landlord’s final complaint response of 14 September 2022 could not guarantee his request that an operative of the landlord’s could be present at his property when the contractor is, and explained this was due to difficult logistics. It further explained that the operative the resident had described as obstructive felt disappointed that he felt this was their intention. It referenced how previous communications had shown a positive working-relationship, and requested for him to review the conversation to understand the approach the operative was trying to take. Finally, it offered him £50 compensation in recognition of the distress caused to him by the visit, and his reported resulting anxiety.
9. On 29 September 2022 the resident issued a further complaint directly to his landlord, which reiterated his previous complaints made to the landlord through its contracted company. It responded to this on 13 October 2022 and upheld its contractor’s previous responses. It further explained that it was not able to have one of its operatives attend his property when the contractor is present, but instead said it had asked that a senior manager of the contractor be present at his property, to ensure good practice is maintained throughout the visit.
10. The resident brought his complaint to this Service because he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation in consideration of his distress, as he feels it was not sufficient and sought increased compensation, but did not specify how much he sought.

Assessment and findings

11. When the landlord receives a report about staff conduct, it would be expected to carry out an investigation of the matter and provide its findings to the resident in a timely manner. After the resident had raised a complaint on 28 June 2022, it took appropriate steps to investigate the reports by seeking further information from him during a phone call on the day of the incident. It conducted further phone calls on 30 June, 5, 18 and 29 July 2022, where it listened to the recording he had taken, and organised a visit to his property to review this in person.
12. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord appropriately referenced this recording as the evidence used, when it admitted it was at fault, and the contractors’ behaviour was below the standard it would expect. It further explained the contractors’ conduct had been investigated and appropriate action had been taken. It has not shared details of the investigation nor the resulting action, which was not unreasonable as it had kept the resident adequately informed, and managed his expectations by stating in its final stage complaint response that this was an internal matter. In the absence of any further evidence, this Service is satisfied that this matter was handled fairly.
13. Furthermore, it showed it had reflected on the events and the contractors had been dealt with to ensure that the behaviour is not repeated in the future. While this was appropriate of the landlord, it has not shown it has taken any steps to provide additional training for the rest of its staff in light of this failing. A recommendation has therefore been made below that it reviews its staff’s training needs with regard to their behaviour and conduct in residents’ homes, when carrying out repairs.
14. The landlord’s stage one complaint response therefore appropriately acknowledged this failing and the distress the events had caused the resident, and offered an apology to him for this. Moreover, it thanked him for providing it with the recording he had taken, and stated this enabled it investigate the contractors’ behaviour. It also offered him £50 compensation in its final stage complaint response, in recognition of the poor conduct of its contractors. This was within the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance for failures that adversely affected the resident.
15. The resident included in his stage one complaint that he was dissatisfied that the contractors’ were rude to him when he questioned their lack of Covid-19 PPE and requested they wear face masks, which he reports they aggressively refused to do. He included this in his complaint to the landlord during the phone call of 28 June 2022. While there was not any government Covid-19 restriction in place requiring the contractors to take safety measures at the time of their attendance, it would have been appropriate for it to refer to this, and the expectations it has for its contractors. Furthermore, it has recorded vulnerabilities for him, which may have been an exacerbating factor that it would’ve been preferable for it to have taken specific measures for.
16. The landlord should have addressed this concern in line with this Service’s complaint handling code, which outlines in paragraph 3.14 that landlords should address all points raised in the complaint. It was therefore a failing of its service that it did not respond to this aspect of his complaint, and took no further steps to apologise or order redress for. It has therefore been ordered below to pay the resident a further £50 compensation in recognition of its failure to respond. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, which suggests compensation from £50, where there has been a minor failure in service by the landlord which has not been put fully right.
17. Following the resident’s complaint of 28 June 2022, the landlord appropriately kept him informed while it conducted its investigation. It initially provided him with a deadline for its complaint response of 11 July 2022; however, it was unable to meet this deadline, as it sought to review the phone recording in–person to hear the ‘finer details’ of it. This delay was therefore reasonable, as it was appropriate that it only reached a conclusion after having thoroughly reviewed all of the evidence available to it. It wrote to him on 11 July 2022 to update the deadline to 22 July 2022. This prevented him from needing to chase it and further inconvenience to him. 
18. On 18 July 2022 the landlord had scheduled for an operative to visit the resident to review the recording in person; however, this did not go ahead because his phone screen was broken and he requested it call him back the following week. It provided a written update to him on 22 July 2022, which extended the deadline for the complaint response until 18 August 2022 in light of this. This was a further extension of 19 working days, which was a significant amount of time when considering it needed to review a single recording. Nevertheless, this was not unreasonable of it, as it kept him involved by informing it of the new deadline.
19. When the resident escalated his complaint on 24 August 2022, he reported to the landlord that he did not feel safe having an operative of the contractor present at his property without having an operative of the landlord’s present to act as a witness. Its final stage complaint response was unable to guarantee to fulfil this request, because of the difficult logistics involved. This was not unreasonable, as it managed his expectations on what services it was able to provide rather than make an obligation it was unable to follow through on.
20. Nevertheless, it was appropriate that, in its response of 13 October 2022, the landlord guaranteed that the contractor would not return to the resident’s property or be assigned to any of his immediate neighbours, and this was an effective way of addressing his concerns regarding his safety. It confirmed that it could fulfil his request that one of its operatives be present when the contractor is, but instead offered to ensure that a senior manager of the contractor be present at his property, to ensure good practice is maintained throughout the visit. This was a reasonable alternative, which addressed his concerns, to prevent distress surrounding future visits.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of its contractors’ behaviour, and the subsequent compensation offered.

Order and recommendation

22. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 total compensation. This is broken down as:
    1. £50 that it had previously offered in recognition of the distress caused to him by the visit, and his reported resulting anxiety.
    2. £50 for its failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint.
23. It is recommended that the landlord review its staff’s training needs with regard to their behaviour and conduct in residents homes, when carrying out repairs.
24. The landlord shall contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above order, and whether it will follow the above recommendation.