London Borough of Hillingdon (202010313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010313

London Borough of Hillingdon

17 April 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:
   1. The resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
   2. Medical evidence to support the resident’s re-housing application.

Background

2. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. There are vulnerabilities listed in the property; namely, mental health vulnerabilities and asthma.
3. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has made a specific complaint about two members of staff. Therefore, for reasons of clarity and anonymity these staff members will be known as staff member A and staff member B throughout this report.
4. In December 2020, this Service determined another case in relation to damp and mould in the resident’s property, where a finding of no maladministration was found in regard to the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould. Whilst this complaint will not be considered during this investigation, in accordance with paragraph 42 (m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this will form part of the background as this is where the resident’s complaint arose and, as such, it is important to note this in order to provide context to the resident’s complaint.
5. In October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to discuss his re-housing application and the lack of response he had received from staff member B. In its response the landlord stated that staff member B would be in contact to discuss his re-housing complaint; however, it understood from previous communication with staff member B (which has not been provided) that his complaint also concerned repairs. It stated that this matter had been addressed as part of the resident’s previous complaint to this Service, and as such would not be addressed. The landlord further stated that ‘it was unhelpful when people pretend that the issues are the landlord’s fault when it is clearly not in this situation.’
6. In December 2020, the resident contacted this Service to express his dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s handling of his medical evidence and alleged discriminatory comments and the Service, contacted the landlord as a result. This communication was followed up in February 2021, when this Service requested an update on the status of the resident’s complaint; however, no communication was received. In September 2021 the resident requested an update on the status of his complaint and this Service contacted the landlord again, requesting an update.
7. The resident contacted this Service in January 2022 again requesting an update on his complaint. This Service responded to the resident in January 2022, but no further response was received until July 2022, where the resident expressed his dissatisfaction in the landlord’s handling of his medical evidence and the staff conduct. In response, this Service contacted the landlord requesting it to address the resident’s complaint; however, the landlord contacted both this Service and the resident requesting further information as it said his complaint was unclear.
8. The resident raised a complaint on 13 September 2022. The resident stated that his complaint related to how he had been treated by staff member A, as he believed the comments made previously in regard to his complaint history was discriminatory. The resident also stated that he was unhappy with how staff member B had handled his medical evidence which supported his re-housing application. The resident explicitly stated that his complaint was not in regard to any repairs previously raised.
9. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that it did not agree with the resident’s opinion that his complaints were not progressed, as it had progressed three between 2019 and 2021. In relation to the resident’s complaint regarding medical evidence and the actions of staff member B, the landlord found that it had requested the evidence on 25 August 2020 and 9 September 2020; however, did not receive the evidence until 12 August 2021. Therefore, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint as it could not identify any failure in its service to the resident.
10. The resident referred this matter to this Service on 29 November 2022. The resident stated that he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response to his complaint as he believed that there were aspects of his complaint left unanswered (the resident did not specify what aspects he was specifically unhappy with). As a resolution, the resident requested to be compensated for the landlord’s ‘negligence’ stating this led to the deterioration of his mental health.

Assessment and findings

11. Prior to establishing any findings in this report, it is important to note that the resident’s complaint at times lacked detail and was vague in nature. In addition, there were delays in the complaint aspects which have made events difficult to establish for both the landlord and this Service. However, we have still been able to reach a determination on this case.

Scope of investigation

12. The resident has referenced how the landlord’s actions or inactions have affected his mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is because it is beyond our remit to determine if there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health issues. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
13. Likewise, the resident believed that the landlord had acted in a discriminatory way towards him based on comments made by staff member A. The resident states that the landlord had been discriminatory towards him based on his complaint history, and that the landlord had requested for him to not contact it any further. It is important to note that this Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in the legal sense, as this would be better suited to a court to decide. However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff.

Staff conduct

14. When receiving complaints regarding discriminatory behaviour the landlord should complete a full and thorough investigation into the resident’s claims. Essentially, the resident was reporting that he felt discriminated against based on comments made about his complaint history. It is important to note that some of the discussions where the resident alleged that he was discriminated against, occurred in 2020 which is two years prior to his complaint being considered. It is clear from the evidence that the resident had attempted to raise these matters as a formal complaint, however the landlord failed to respond as such. Owing to the time period that had lapsed, it may be difficult for staff member A to recall discussions that had occurred, and as the landlord failed to investigate at the time, doing so two years later would have impacted the landlord’s investigation into the allegation. However, the landlord would still have been expected to approach staff member A to discuss the allegations, and collect any evidence it could to support an investigation and it failed to do so.
15. In the evidence provided to this Service, the allegations made by the resident were not investigated at the time the matter was raised and has not been investigated by the landlord in more recent times. There is no evidence to suggest that during the complaints process the landlord accessed previous emails or discussed matters with staff member A in regard to the alleged discriminatory comments made.
16. Instead, the landlord provided a complaint response detailing the resident’s complaint history, which is not what was complained about. The resident made it clear in his escalation request that this was not the complaint he was wishing to pursue and informed it that he was complaining about the alleged discriminatory comments. However, in its stage two response the landlord repeated the same complaints history as it did at stage one. This would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and would have led to him feeling unheard by the landlord. Therefore, this failure to firstly investigate the resident’s complaint appropriately at the time he raised the matter and then in more recent times and provide a response to the resident’s allegations is a significant failure in its service.
17. In light of the above, and given the passage of time, it is accepted that a relevant investigation into the alleged discriminatory comments will be difficult, however the landlord will be ordered to remind its staff of the need for respect and professionalism when communicating with residents. In addition, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the distress caused by the communication with the landlord’s staff, the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling and lack of engagement in the complaint. This compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £100 to £600 for cases where the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord, where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but had no permanent impact and the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings and/or has made no attempt to put things right.

Medical evidence

18. Under Paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to application for re-housing specifically made to the landlord. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points or banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). However, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s allegations of misconduct by its staff in the handling of his medical evidence.
19. In the evidence provided to this Service, staff member B requested that the resident provide medical evidence to support a re-housing application on 25 August 2020 and 9 September 2020. However, after reviewing its records and evidence, no medical evidence had been provided until 12 August 2021, nearly a year later. The landlord also noted that after receiving this evidence, the resident was awarded band ‘A’ priority and had since been bidding on properties.
20. This Service acknowledges that the resident disputes aspects of this version of events and he believes that he provided the evidence sooner than 12 August 2021; however, the landlord also used its complaints process to request the resident provide any evidence he had which showed that the medical evidence was sent prior to 21 August 2021 which was an appropriate step to take, as it could not locate any communication on its servers prior to 21 August 2021 regarding the medical evidence. The resident did not provide the landlord or this Service with any evidence which supports his version of events.
21. As such, there was no failing by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s medical evidence. In addition, if the resident does have evidence that shows he provided the landlord with the medical evidence requested prior to 21 August 2021, this Service encourages the resident to provide this to the landlord so it can reconsider its position on this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of poor staff conduct.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s medical evidence.

Orders

24. The landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £300 compensation in light of the distress and inconvenience caused by not addressing his complaint regarding allegations of discrimination.
    2. Remind staff of the need for professionalism and respect when addressing residents.
    3. Provide staff training on complaint handling to ensure that complaint responses adequately acknowledge and address the issues being complained off, especially where this is made clear in any escalation request.
25. This should be completed within four weeks of this report.