Lambeth Council (202203500)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203500

Lambeth Council

2 March 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 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:
    1. providing incorrect information to the resident to arrange a gas safety check;
    2. declining to disclose full names of staff members.
  2. The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

42. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

  1. Based on the correspondence between the parties, while it is evident that the resident reported concerns relating to the landlord providing incorrect information to the resident to arrange a gas safety check, it is not evident that this was raised or responded to as a formal complaint.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. If the resident makes a formal complaint, progresses it through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and is dissatisfied with the outcome, she may be able to refer the complaint to this service.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. On 17 September 2021, the resident reported that the landlord had previously provided her with a number in order to arrange her annual gas safety check. The resident believed that the number was incorrect, as she had been unable to get through.
  3. While making this report, the landlord’s call operative noted they needed to refer the report to their supervisor. The resident subsequently requested the full names of the operative and their supervisor; however, the operative declined to disclose this information. The also resident requested to be provided with a policy that stated the operative was not required to give their name.
  4. The landlord subsequently opened a formal complaint relating to the incorrect telephone number and to the operative declining to provide their full name.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 1 February 2022. It advised there was no specific written policy that set out the landlord’s ability to decline a request to provide the full names of its staff, but that this was an unwritten policy that it followed. It explained this was due to its safeguarding obligations for its staff. The landlord also noted that it was the resident’s understanding that the operative had refused to raise a formal complaint. It advised this was not the case, and that the complaint had been raised on 17 September 2021 as requested by the resident.
  6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and the time it had taken to respond. She requested her complaint be escalated.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 7 March 2022. The landlord reiterated its position that it would not disclose the full names of its staff, and that this did not hinder its staff in providing the required service. It also reiterated this was not a written policy, but had been adopted in part due to harassment of staff in the past. It also acknowledged there had been a delay to its response, for which it apologised.
  8. The resident advised this service that she wanted compensation for the inconvenience caused, and that she wanted to be provided with a policy that confirmed the landlord was not obliged to provide the full names of staff members.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy advises that it will “acknowledge [the] complaint within two working days and aim to send a full response within 20 working days.”
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy also states that, if it should take longer to provide a response “[the landlord] will tell [the resident] why there is a delay and when [the resident] can expect a full response.”
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy gives the same guidance for its stage two complaints, except there is a 25-working day response time.

Staff names

  1. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to maintain formal policies to explain its approach in certain areas of its service delivery. However, the Ombudsman would not expect a landlord to formally codify and maintain a policy for every single action its staff can and cannot make. The Ombudsman would not consider it service failure for a landlord to have an informal policy in relation to how its staff address themselves and the personal information they disclose.
  2. While it was understandable that the resident queried whether the landlord had such a policy, the landlord’s explanation provided in its stage one response appropriately articulated its position. It was reasonable that it repeated this position in its stage two response, and it was appropriate that it also provided context, namely that it wished to safeguard its staff from having their personal data shared or used for harassment.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s position and reasoning is common in the industry and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect. It is not evident that by declining to provide such information, the staff member’s ability to provide the landlord’s service was impacted, nor is it evident that the staff member couldn’t be internally identified should a dispute arise.
  4. In summary, the Ombudsman would not consider it service failure for a landlord to not have a specific written policy in relation to what personal information its staff can disclose. Therefore, the landlord’s approach and response was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

  1. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord is obliged to acknowledge, investigate, and provide a response within the published timeframes of its policies and procedures. Should the landlord be unable to do so, it is the landlord’s duty to keep the resident informed as to the progress of the investigation, and the estimated timeframes in which the resident could expect a response.
  2. After the resident’s initial complaint on 17 September 2021, the landlord failed to adhere to the 20 working-day timeframe that had been set out in its complaints policy. The landlord’s stage one response was sent to the resident on 1 February 2022, roughly four and a half months after the resident’s complaint.
  3. The landlord advised that the operative that was overseeing the complaint had been unwell throughout November 2021, and therefore had a large backlog of complaints to work through upon their return. However, when considering the 20 working-day timeframe set out in the complaints policy, the landlord’s stage one response should have been sent in October 2021. As such, the landlord’s reasoning that absence in November 2021 caused the delay, was not a reasonable justification.
  4. Even so, once the staff member in question was absent, the landlord should have a process in place to ensure that active complaints are assigned to other staff members, should they be within risk of being late in response. Additionally, the landlord should have kept the resident informed as to the progress of her complaint by giving updates, and explanations for the delay. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations. Managing expectations is an important part of the landlord’s service delivery, and if done well, can potentially have a positive impact on the landlord/tenant relationship.
  5. Given the extensive delay, and the failure to keep the resident updated, it is the opinion of the Ombudsman that there was maladministration by the landlord in regard to its complaints handling. While it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the delay, given the frustration the delay would have caused, an amount of £75 compensation is appropriate to reflect the impact caused to the resident. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance for instances in which there was service failure that may have caused inconvenience, but “may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint.”

Determination

  1. As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint regarding incorrect information provided to the resident to arrange a gas safety check is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in landlord’s refusal to disclose full names of staff members, or a policy relating to this.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in regard to its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £75 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its ineffective complaints handling.
  2. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.