Harlow District Council (202211041)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211041

Harlow District Council

7 August 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’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding staff conduct, specifically the tenancy support officer.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord who has several physical and mental health vulnerabilities, that makes it difficult to retain information. The landlord has a record of these vulnerabilities on file. The layout of this reports has been adjusted in recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities and for the resident’s ease of reading.
  2. The resident called the landlord on 8 November 2021 regarding ongoing issues at her property. As she was explaining the property issues in detail, she said the tenancy support officer said that she was acting like a “maniac” and was “manic”. She raised a complaint on 10 November 2022 regarding the following:
    1. She was unhappy such terminology was used and felt personally attacked and offended.
    2. She disputed the use and meaning of the word “manic” with the tenancy support office.
    3. She felt that the tenancy support officer was not fit for their position, did not listen to her, and did not write down what she had requested as part of her complaint.
    4. She wished for the tenancy support officer to have no further involvement with her.
  3. The landlord responded with its stage 1 complaint response on 23 November 2021. It upheld the resident’s complaint, stating that the tenancy support officer had been assigned to help the resident’s move into her property and that it had conducted a thorough investigation. The landlord made the following findings:
    1. It was unable to listen to the resident’s previous call as not all calls were currently recorded.
    2. It met with the tenancy support officer who agreed that the inappropriate word “manic” was used, and that this had a negative impact on the resident. It found that this was used more in its direct sense rather than any medical use of the term, as it agreed the tenancy support officer did not mean to cause offense or harm the resident.
    3. Both the landlord and the tenancy support officer apologised for the behaviour, and as a result the landlord said it would initiate training for all tenancy support officers to help ensure that they are using appropriate language when considering physical and mental health vulnerabilities.
    4. It agreed that the tenancy support officer should have no further involvement with the resident.
  4. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 as she didn’t believe the apology was sincere, wishing for the landlord to guarantee that this would never happen again. She requested the tenancy support officer to directly apologise to her.
  5. The landlord issued it stage 2 complaint response on 7 December 2021. It upheld its previous response, stating that a tenancy support officer was not obligated to issue a personal apology as part of its internal complaint procedure.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 3 on 14 December 2021 adamant that the tenancy support officer used inappropriate and offensive language towards her by calling her a “maniac”. She said that the tenancy support officer needs to be monitored moving forwards.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 3 response 23 December 2021. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint, accepting that while the previous discussion with the tenancy support officer had caused her anxiety and offended her, the tenancy support officer denied using the word “maniac”.
  8. The resident brought her complaint to the attention of this Service as she felt that the landlord did not take the matter seriously enough. She wished for the following outcomes to her complaint:
    1. For a new tenancy support officer to be assigned to assist with tenancy needs, even if temporary.
    2. For the previous tenancy support officer to have no more contact with her.
    3. The tenancy support officer to be monitored for bullying and for them to have no further contact with vulnerable residents.
    4. For the tenancy support officer to be investigated by the landlord to see if there had been similar issues historically.
    5. For the landlord to make reasonable adjustments to read complaint responses to the resident paragraph by paragraph. And to give her time to respond to each paragraph over the phone and have her responses recorded.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her complaint the resident requested that the landlord investigates the tenancy support officer for bullying and look to monitor them moving forward. She also requested that they have no further involvement with vulnerable residents because of the misconduct towards her. This Service has been set up to investigate complaints about member landlords but is unable to investigate complaints regarding terms of employment, or disciplinary actions towards specific members of staff.
  2. This includes terms of their employment or other personal issues as per paragraph 42(I) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. As the Ombudsman is unable to comment on or order the landlord as to what disciplinary actions it should implement for the tenancy support officer, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is not considered in this report.

Assessment

  1. It is important to note that the Ombudsman will not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, including any disciplinary proceedings the landlord has conducted.
  2. 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. 
  3. In short, we can look at staff conduct in some cases, and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.
  4. The landlord would be expected to respond to the resident’s reports of the tenancy support officer’s misconduct towards her by conducting an investigation. Where any failings have been identified an apology and/or an appropriate remedy is to be issued reflecting the impact and the circumstances of the complaint.
  5. Furthermore, this Service expects landlords to consider responses that are in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from the outcomes.
  6. In accordance with the landlord’s staff code of conduct policy, all employees must treat others with respect and not discriminate unlawfully against any person. It must act and comply in accordance with both the its legal obligations and its current equality policies.
  7. In this case the landlord fairly considered the resident’s concerns of its staff’s misconduct towards her by conducting a thorough investigation. It appropriately attempted to listen to the call that took place on 8 November 2021, though it was unable to do so due to this not being recorded.
  8. Instead, the landlord correctly communicated with its tenancy support officer, who, ultimately agreed that inappropriate language was used. It fairly considered that the language used had greater impact on the resident, particularly given her physical vulnerabilities that the tenancy support officer was aware of. As such its apology to the resident for this behavior was appropriate, as it was clear that the tenancy support officer had breached the staff code of conduct in this case.
  9. Although the severity of the language that was used is disputed between the landlord and the resident, as the tenancy support officer denied using the term “maniac”, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the accounts of its staff. Furthermore, the landlord fairly considered the resident’s accounts and did not dispute that inappropriate language was used.
  10. The landlord looked to put matters right by apologising to the resident, including passing over its tenancy support officer’s apology. It fairly agreed with the resident that the officer should have no further involvement with her to prevent the issue from reoccurring, and to help restore the resident’s faith in its service to her.
  11. Though it is noted the resident feels that the landlord’s apology is not sincere, the landlord looked to reassure the resident, throughout its complaint responses, that this was not the case. Ultimately the Ombudsman finds that the apology was deemed a suitable and proportionate remedy, particularly as the duration of the misconduct was over one phone call, was not repeated, and the landlord directly addressed the issue whilst providing a long-term solution by ensuring the tenancy support officer would no longer be interacting with her.
  12. Furthermore, the landlord showed some learning from the outcome of the resident’s complaint. It looked to conduct training for its tenancy support officers to be mindful of the language used when interacting with tenants, particularly where vulnerabilities are known.
  13. Considering the above, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord acted within its obligations and appropriately investigated the resident’s reports of staff misconduct towards her. It is found that it correctly upheld the resident’s complaint and offered an apology that, in the opinion of this Service, was a suitable remedy that resolve’s the resident’s complaint prior to this investigation.
  14. Given the resident’s desired outcomes, it is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss what reasonable adjustments she may need, such as offering alternative formats of its communication with the resident, and reading aloud complaint responses and record the resident’s responses.
  15. The landlord is also given the further recommendation below that it look to record all calls moving forwards, to assist with any disputed record of accounts or further discussions with the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to:
    1. Contact the resident to discuss what reasonable adjustments she may need, such:
      1. Alternative layouts and format options, such as large print or bullet pointed paragraphs.
      2. Reading complaint responses paragraph by paragraph, taking into account her vulnerabilities.
      3. Assigning an alternative tenancy support officer to assist where possible.
    2. Consider recording all calls moving forwards.