Abri Group Limited (202114840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114840

Abri Group Limited

4 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 concerns how the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of inappropriate conduct by a staff member.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a flat in a communal building.
3. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage one within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint to the next stage. The landlord will then undertake a review of the complaint and provide a stage two response within 20 working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

4. On 11 June 2021 the resident called the landlord following an incident outside the building her property is in. The landlord’s notes of the telephone call stated that:
   1. The resident had observed one of the maintenance contractors defecating in building’s car park. This was not the first time that she had observed this behaviour from the operative.
   2. When the resident spoke to the operative about their actions, she was verbally abused.
   3. The resident wanted to raise a complaint into the matter.
5. The landlord’s notes also stated that it then spoke to the operative’s manager, who informed it that the operative had apologised for their actions and explained the circumstances that caused the issue.
6. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 June 2021. It confirmed that it had opened a formal complaint and that it aimed to provide a response within ten working days.
7. A stage one complaint response was sent to the resident on 24 June 2021. It informed the resident that it had upheld her complaint and apologised for the distress and upset that it had caused. It explained that the operative had apologised for their behaviour and that the operative would no longer work at the building. It also explained that it had taken internal action but was unable to share any detailed information about this with the resident.
8. The landlord then stated that it understood that abusive language was directed at the operative during the incident. It reminded the resident that it expects its tenants to be courteous and respectful to all staff members and to refrain from abusive language.
9. The resident replied to the landlord on 26 June 2021. She stated it that it was the operative who had been abusive towards her and informed the landlord that the area where the incident occurred had yet to be cleaned.
10. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 July 2021. It apologised for the area not yet being cleaned and confirmed that a work order had been raised to sanitise the area as soon as possible. It then informed the resident that it did not tolerate verbal abuse from its staff members, explained that the matter was still being investigated internally, and offered the resident £150 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
11. The resident replied on 2 July 2021 and declined the compensation offer. The landlord wrote back and explained that the resident could request an escalation of the complaint if she was dissatisfied with its response.
12. The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 July 2020 and requested to escalate the complaint on the grounds that it had yet to clean the area where the incident happened and for the way her household was treated when the incident was reported.
13. The landlord replied on 15 July 2021. It confirmed that it had escalated the complaint and that it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.
14. On 16 July 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to inform it that the cleaning contractors had attended but had not cleaned the area of the car park where the incident happened. The landlord replied and informed the resident that it had spoken to the contractor, who had stated it had cleaned the area around the recycling bins following a discussion with the resident. The landlord then stated that the contractor would return that afternoon to fully sanitise the whole area.
15. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 July 2021 to provide more detail on the outstanding issues of the complaint. She explained that the incident has had a detrimental effect on her and her family and that they no longer felt safe in their home. She then stated that she did not feel that the landlord had taken her complaint seriously.
16. The stage two complaint response was sent to the resident on 4 August 2021. The landlord informed her that:
    1. It apologised for the upset and distress that the matter had caused the resident and her family. It assured her that it had taken her complaint seriously.
    2. It noted that while there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident, this did not justify the operative’s behaviour and actions. It explained that the investigation into the matter was still ongoing, in line with its disciplinary policies and procedures.
    3. It accepted that the affected area was not cleaned in a timely manner. It apologised to the resident and informed her that it had learned lessons from the incident and would improve its service delivery in the future
    4. It also recognised that it had previously been informed by the resident of the poor standard of service of its cleaners. It explained that it had arranged a meeting with its cleaning contractor to ensure it met its expectations for the cleaning contract. It also offered for a housing officer to regularly visit the resident to review the quality of the cleaning, however this offer was declined by the resident.
    5. A senior manager now undertook fortnightly visits to the site to inspect the quality of the cleaning. The last inspection was undertaken on 29 July 2021, where the quality of work was found to be of an acceptable standard.
    6. Due to the distress that the situation had caused the resident and her family, it had offered a goodwill gesture of £200.
17. The resident contacted this Service on 29 September 2021 and described the outstanding issues of the complaint as:
    1. She did not think the incident was properly investigated by the landlord, nor that it had learned from the incident.
    2. The landlord had not taken into account the effect on the mental health of her family that the incident had caused.
    3. The length of time it took for the landlord to clean the area was not acceptable.
18. As a resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that landlord apologise to her in person and that it provides compensation equivalent to the expected amount she would receive if she had taken the matter to court.

Assessment and findings

19. In its complaint responses, the landlord recognised that the incident involving the operative was not acceptable and acknowledged that the area had not been properly cleaned in a timely manner. It apologised, explained what steps it had taken internally to improve its service and offered £200 compensation.
20. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and confirming it would carry out an internal investigation into the incident. It put things right by apologising to the resident, arranging to have the area cleaned, taking disciplinary action against the operative, and awarded appropriate compensation. It looked to learn from its errors by meeting with the cleaning contractor to discuss the quality of its work and implementing fortnightly inspections by a manager.
22. The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its disciplinary policy and transcripts of its interview of the operative and the operative’s written statement describing the incident. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the matter was “being taken seriously and being dealt with via our internal processes”.
23. This was an appropriate response by the landlord. It recognised that this type of behaviour and language is not acceptable for its staff members to use and for it to investigate the matter in line with its disciplinary policy. However, due to data protection issues, it would not be expected to tell the resident any specific details regarding what, if any, action it took regarding the member of staff. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate employment matters and therefore we would not assess any specific action which the landlord may have taken regarding the staff member concerned or comment on this as part of our assessment of this complaint.
24. The compensation payment was made in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website). This suggests a payment of £50 to £250 in cases of service failure which had an impact but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the complainant. As examples for when this level of payment should be considered, the guidance suggests “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact” [on the outcome of the complaint.]
25. When the resident informed the landlord that the area had not been cleaned it raised a work order for this to be done. It arranged for the cleaners to return to sanitise the whole area when resident contacted it about the areas that had been originally cleaned being unsatisfactory. The landlord then implemented a new inspection process for its cleaning contractor and also offered to contact the resident regularly to receive feedback on the quality of cleaning at the building. A payment of £200 was therefore reasonable in the circumstances in recognition of the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
26. The resident highlighted her dissatisfaction that the effect on the mental health of her family was not considered by the landlord during the complaint. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her family, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or to landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim.
27. This is in line with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion 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”. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident and her family and how the landlord responded to her concerns about her health.
28. The resident also stated her dissatisfaction with the level of compensation offered by the landlord. She requested that it was increased to match the level of redress she would be expected to receive if she took the matter to court.
29. The Ombudsman’s awards of compensation are not intended to be punitive, and we do not offer damages in the way that a court might. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, this Service takes account of a range of factors including any particular distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s actions. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s awards are generally moderate, taking into account the landlord’s need to make the most effective use of its limited resources as a social landlord for the benefit of all its residents.
30. Therefore, for the reasons set out above, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to address what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Determination (decision)

31. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of how it responded to the resident’s reports of inappropriate conduct by a staff member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Reasons

32. The landlord recognised the upset and distress caused to the resident by the incident and the delay in cleaning the area. The landlord apologised, changed its procedures for inspecting its cleaning contractor, and awarded compensation proportionate to the effect of these failures on the resident.