Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202126976)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126976

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

25 May 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 conduct of landlord staff during the resident’s application for rehousing and the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident has a secured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
3. Between March 2021 and April 2022, the resident made an application for rehousing. The application had been made for reasons relating to personal safety.
4. During the application, the landlord requested the resident to complete a medical assessment. The resident disagreed with the request as they stated a previous assessment could be used. The resident also disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to approve their priority for rehousing. The resident and landlord continued to correspond about the application and assessment during the process.
5. On 14 May 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s handling of their application for rehousing. The resident outlined their concerns about landlord staff and stated that decisions had been made on “perceived discrimination”.
6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in June 2021. The response provided an explanation for the decisions made by the landlord and provided assurances it did not “discriminate on any grounds”.
7. In July 2021, the resident raised another complaint with the landlord. The complaint described the resident’s dissatisfaction with the handling of their rehousing application. They also suggested the landlord had fabricated information during conversations and acted without honesty and integrity.
8. The landlord accepted the July 2021 complaint as escalation to stage two of its complaint process and issued a response in August 2021. The landlord apologised for misrepresenting events and provided an explanation of the case review process for rehousing applications. It also apologised that the resident had found its staff to be “rude and unsympathetic”.
9. Following the stage two response, the resident remained unhappy and contacted the landlord again. The resident stated:
   1. “You [the landlord] do not mention any actions or plans to improve staff training or behaviour when dealing with concerns of vulnerable people…”.
   2. “…the apology written doesn’t appear to be sincere or includes any recommendations…”.
   3. The landlord had lied and lacked integrity.
   4. They would like the complaint to go to the “next stage of the process”.
10. The landlord responded in September 2021, addressing the resident’s concerns. It apologised and told the resident it would be arranging refresher training for staff. The landlord also addressed the accusations that it had lied, stating it could not find any evidence demonstrating that behaviour during its investigation.
11. The resident contacted this Service in March 2022. They outlined their concerns with the process of rehousing and staff conduct. When referring to landlord conduct, the resident stated:
    1. “Thought I [the resident] was lying and did not take me seriously.”
    2. “The [landlord] did not show any concern or regard for my or my child’s safety.”
    3. Responses “were full of lies and around 5 different versions of the conversations that took place.”
    4. Fabricated information “to cover [its] colleagues.”
    5. Had been “looking for some way to discredit or play down my situation.”
    6. “Had an attitude.”

The resident also said they had experienced discrimination during the rehousing process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

12. This Service is unable to consider the statutory decisions made by the landlord in relation to the rehousing application or any issues raised about the suitability of a property. This is because complaints about local authority housing allocations fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has found the resident’s concerns about their rehousing application to fall within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman. The resident may be able to refer their complaint about the rehousing process to the LGSCO should they wish to take it further.
13. In addition, within their complaint to the landlord, the resident suggested that they felt discriminated against. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place in a legal sense in terms of alleged breaches of the Equality Act, as this is 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, including whether there is any evidence that the resident was treated less favourably than others in the same situation.

Assessment

14. As part of their complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of landlord staff who had handled their application for rehousing. The resident advised that the landlord’s staff had been rude and unsympathetic of their situation. They also felt the landlord had been fabricating information throughout the application process. The landlord was therefore expected to address those concerns and provide an appropriate response, setting out any actions it would be taking following any findings of misconduct.
15. Within its stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s allegations of discrimination. It stated that “it practices principles of public sector equality duty at all levels. The landlord’s stage two response stated “Customer care is important to us and staff are aware of the need to provide the highest quality of service at all times. I am sorry that this was not your experience but hope you will have a more positive experience if you contact this service in future.”
16. It was reasonable that the landlord could not share the outcome of any investigation in terms of any disciplinary matters related to staff actions. If a disciplinary investigation was appropriate, it would relate to employment matters which would be confidential and beyond the remit of this Service’s investigation. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s allegations, without compromising confidentiality. The landlord could have taken the opportunity to demonstrate the actions it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns, confirming whether it had found any misconduct by its staff and apologising if misconduct had taken place. It could have mentioned any points of learning it had taken from the complaint without referring to individual staff members such as confirming it would provide training to staff or that it would review its practices and procedures to ensure similar issues did not occur in future.
17. It was not until after the landlord’s internal complaint process had been exhausted that it provided an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns. The letter to the resident on 16 September 2021 addressed each concern and outlined the actions the landlord had taken to resolve them. It outlined the training staff would be required to complete as a result of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also explained it had found no evidence of lies of malpractice. The landlord’s failure to provide the resident with an appropriate response at stage two of the complaint process was likely to have caused the resident some distress and inconvenience. It also missed the opportunity to resolve issues sooner.
18. While the landlord has acknowledged its failings and provided the resident with an apology, this Service has found it should have done this sooner. The Ombudsman’s approach to compensation is set out in our Remedies Guidance, published on our website. The Remedies Guidance suggests that awards of £50 to £100 may be appropriate for cases where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these failings and/or fully put them right. Given the service failures identified and the subsequent distress and inconvenience caused, this Service has found compensation of £100 to be appropriate.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service has identified service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling when investigating concerns about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

20. The landlord is to pay the resident compensation of £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures identified in this investigation.
21. The landlord should confirm compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

22. The landlord should run refresher training for all relevant staff, covering complaint handling and providing appropriate complaint responses from the outset.