North West Leicestershire District Council (202222635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222635

North West Leicestershire District Council

25 July 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 concerns about staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant who lives in a warden-controlled property owned by the landlord. The resident has multiple health diagnoses, which the landlord has recorded.
3. On unspecified dates during the summer of 2022, the resident received text messages from 1 of the landlord’s repairs operatives. The text messages included comments about what the resident would be wearing during repairs appointments and also attempted to arrange a meeting with the resident for coffee.
4. On 24 August 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She said that in June 2022, she had made a verbal complaint about the text messages she had received. A meeting with the human resources department had taken place in July 2022, but the landlord had not acknowledged her complaint. She wanted to know if any action had been taken against the repairs operative.
5. On an unspecified date, the landlord visited the resident’s home and delivered a letter from the repairs operative. In the letter, the repairs operative apologised to the resident for “the misunderstanding and upset caused by some text communication” and said he thought it was “banter”.
6. On 5 September 2022, a member of the landlord’s staff visited the resident at her home. The resident asked the member of staff to arrange for them both to meet with the repairs operative, as she felt that his letter of apology did not fully address her concerns. The member of staff confirmed they would arrange the meeting, but it would have to take place once they had returned from an extended period of leave. The resident confirmed she was happy to wait until the staff member returned to work.
7. On 21 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. It apologised for the delay in issuing its response. It explained the reasons for the delay, referring to the conversation with the resident at her home on 5 September 2022. The resident had cancelled the meeting the day before it was due to take place. The landlord stated that it had therefore been left “with no option but to respond to this complaint at stage 1 in writing”. It then confirmed that “appropriate action has been taken with the officer in question”.
8. The resident was unhappy with the response at stage 1 of the complaints process and requested on the same day that the landlord escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the process. She said she felt the landlord had attempted to “whitewash” her concerns.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 November 2022. It apologised for the “distress and anguish” caused to the resident and acknowledged that the incident with the repairs operative had the potential to cause the resident significant emotional distress. It outlined the actions it had taken in response to the incident and hoped this showed the resident that the landlord was not attempting to “whitewash” her concerns:
   1. It had instructed staff not to communicate with residents by text messaging.
   2. It had taken action against the repairs operative. While the landlord was unable to disclose confidential details about this, it reassured the resident that the action taken was considered appropriate to the issue.
   3. It confirmed that a written apology from the repairs operative had been hand-delivered to the resident.
   4. It offered to rearrange a meeting for the resident with management and/or the repairs operative if the resident decided she wanted to go ahead with this.
   5. It said the repairs operative had been instructed not to contact the resident, and the landlord would make sure he does not attend the resident’s property again.
10. Following the stage 2 complaint response, a meeting took place between the resident and 2 landlord representatives on 30 November 2022. The resident’s sister was also present at the meeting. The aim of the meeting was to hear the resident’s concerns and discuss the best way to resolve them. The meeting caused the resident to become very upset. The resident and her sister both provided written accounts to the landlord of their negative experiences in the meeting.
11. On 4 January 2023, the resident requested that the landlord record a new formal complaint from her about the landlord’s treatment of her in the meeting of 30 November 2022. She was also unhappy that the landlord had taken the repair operative’s apology letter away from her and that the repairs operative had greeted her at the landlord’s office before the meeting on 30 November 2022.
12. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s treatment of her at the meeting of 30 November 2022. It stated that while 1 of the landlord’s representatives present at the meeting admitted to being “firm and assertive”, it denied that they had been “disrespectful, abrupt and uncaring” as suggested by the resident. It stated that the repairs operative had shown the resident respect by greeting her in the landlord’s office despite her complaint about him. It asked that the resident put her request for the repairs operative to not speak to her at all into writing. The resident requested on the same day that her complaint was escalated to stage 2 of the complaint process. The stage 2 complaint response issued on 16 February 2023 declined to add anything further to the stage 1 response regarding the meeting. The landlord confirmed that it had instructed the repairs operative to not speak directly to the resident again. It provided the resident with details for a single named contact for her to ensure she receives the best service possible in future.
13. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of her complaint and referred it to the Ombudsman to investigate. She would like a written apology from the landlord for its handling of her complaint. She would also like financial compensation to be awarded to recognise her distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

         The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct

14. This service has seen a copy of the text messages sent to the resident by the landlord’s repairs operative. The messages were unprofessional and inappropriate. Some of the messages were suggestive and they represented a clear breach of professional boundaries and acceptable conduct that the resident was entitled to expect from employees of the landlord.
15. The repairs operative was tasked with visiting the resident’s home to carry out repairs, which means there was a significant level of trust required. The resident lives in warden-controlled accommodation and has a traumatic personal history, which she had disclosed to the landlord. Therefore, this breach of professional standards and trust which would reasonably be expected to cause anyone a degree of discomfort and alarm, was more likely to have a more significant impact on the resident.
16. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 complaint response dated 3 November 2022 that the repair operative’s behaviour was not in line with its employee code of conduct. The code of conduct states it aims to ensure that public confidence in its employees’ integrity “cannot be shaken by the least suspicion, however ill-founded, that [they] could in any way be influenced by improper motives”. It states that employees of the landlord are expected to conduct themselves “to the highest standards”. It sets out that they must not use any information they have access to during their employment “for personal gain or benefit”.
17. The text messages sent by the repairs operative were a misuse of the resident’s personal information that he had been given access to as part of his employment with the landlord. The repairs operative used the resident’s phone number to send inappropriate messages that gave unwanted attention and attempted to create a personal relationship with the resident. This was outside of his remit as a professional employed by the landlord to meet its legal repairs obligations. This was a significant breach of the landlord’s employee code of conduct as it falls far short of “the highest standards” of conduct and service that residents should be able to expect. The resident should be able to expect that the landlord protected her personal information and ensure that it is not used for any purpose except those necessary for the performing of its functions as a landlord. The landlord failed to do this and failed in its duties to safeguard the resident and her personal information.
18. The resident stated in an email dated 24 August 2022 that she had complained verbally to the landlord in June 2022. She said that nothing had been done aside from a meeting with the landlord’s human resources department in July 2022. The resident had not been given any information about steps the landlord had taken in response to her concerns. This service has not been provided with any information about this meeting from the landlord. Arranging for the resident to meet with the landlord’s human resources department is an appropriate way of responding to the concerns the resident had reported. However, the resident had not been kept informed. She had to make further contact with the landlord to have her complaint acknowledged and receive details of how it would resolve her concerns. The landlord should have provided this to the resident without the need for her to prompt it. This would have demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and accepted the severity of them. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to share details of any disciplinary action it may have taken against the repairs operative. This is because employment matters are confidential. However, the landlord could have still provided the resident with an appropriate apology and reassurance that it had taken appropriate action following her complaints such as ensuring the operative would not contact her again, without compromising confidentiality.
19. The resident received a written apology from the repairs operative as a way of addressing her complaint. She was unhappy with the contents of the letter and felt it did not address her concerns. The resident’s sister provided a written account of her attendance at the meeting of 30 November 2022 with the landlord. In it, she described a representative of the landlord drawing attention to a specific sentence in the letter multiple times, to show why the apology should be accepted by the resident. The evidence suggests that the landlord saw this letter as an appropriate remedy to the resident’s complaint.
20. This service has seen a copy of the apology letter. On 2 occasions in the letter, the repairs operative described the inappropriate messages he had sent as “banter”. He stated that he had “good professional relationships” with many residents and he often used this sort of “friendly banter” with them. The letter refers to a “misunderstanding” and says the messages have “come across wrong”. The wording in the letter suggests that the problem did not lie with the repairs operative’s behaviour, but instead with the resident’s perception of his behaviour. If the repairs operative was suggesting that the messages the resident received were normal for residents to receive as part of a “good professional relationship”, that should have flagged up a significant concern for the landlord to immediately investigate. This service has seen little evidence or reference to any steps the landlord has taken to address what sounded potentially like a wider pattern of inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour. It is concerning that the landlord believed this letter was appropriate as an apology. The landlord should carry out a review of this case in which it investigates and addresses any workplace culture that may have enabled the operative’s behaviour.
21. The landlord accepted that the resident was unhappy with the letter she had received. It agreed to arrange meetings with individual staff members that the resident requested to meet with. This was the correct approach for the landlord to take in an effort to understand the resident’s concerns and provide reassurance that it was taking her complaint seriously. The meeting of 30 November 2022 took place after the landlord had issued its final stage 2 complaint response. This demonstrated some commitment to addressing the resident’s concerns. However, the resident described experiencing significant distress during and after the meeting. She described feeling “bullied” by the landlord to accept the apology letter she had been given. She stated that she left the meeting in tears more than once. The resident’s sister described in her witness account how the resident attended the meeting with a list of questions, and that she did not have the opportunity to ask them before she became distressed due to the way the meeting was conducted.
22. The landlord admitted in its stage 1 complaint response dated 26 January 2023 that 1 of the landlord’s staff members had acted in a “firm and assertive” manner in order to control the meeting and ensure it was productive. The aim of the meeting was to resolve a sensitive situation with a resident with a known mental health diagnosis and traumatic personal history, where the landlord had to address its own failures. It was not appropriate to take a “firm and assertive” manner in this setting when the landlord should have taken a more conciliatory approach given the clear evidence of misconduct by its employee. The landlord mishandled the meeting, which did not achieve its aims and caused the resident further, avoidable distress.
23. The resident stated to the landlord that she had been greeted by the repairs operative in the landlord’s office before the meeting on 30 November 2022 began. This had caused her distress and discomfort. The landlord has explained to this service that this was an accident. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 26 January 2023, the landlord said that the repairs operative had been showing the resident “respect” despite being “reprimanded” for his behaviour towards her. This was an inappropriate comment for the landlord to make. The landlord asked the resident to request in writing that the repairs operative does not speak to her at all. This is a further mishandling of the situation. The landlord had already stated in its stage 2 complaint response of 3 November 2022 that the repairs operative had been instructed not to talk to the resident again. This instruction had not been followed when the resident should have been able to expect that it would be. Following the resident’s disclosures and given the sensitive nature of the situation, the landlord failed to protect the resident from further discomfort and distress. It failed to understand that the resident was very likely to find any further communication from the repairs operative to be distressing and take reasonable steps to safeguard her. The resident should not have been required to request in writing that she did not want further communication or interaction with the individual who had behaved inappropriately towards her, especially when this had already been promised by the landlord. This should have been an automatic part of the landlord’s response to the concerns. There was a lack of sensitivity in the landlord’s handling of this issue as it did not apologise for this incident and instead said the operative was showing “respect”.
24. The landlord has admitted to this service that it “did not appreciate initially how much the incident had impacted [the resident] or that it had triggered psychological distress related to previous incidents”. The lack of understanding displayed by the landlord towards the resident extended far past any initial period in the timeline of events. The landlord has a duty to safeguard the resident from further interaction with the repairs operative. The landlord has assured this service that any further interaction is unlikely to reoccur as the landlord now operates a multi-site approach where residents are served in a separate town centre location. The landlord needs to ensure the resident is not put in a situation where she is likely to see or can be approached by the repairs operative again and this should not be left to chance. The landlord should take steps to ensure that this operative does not work in or around the resident’s building and if possible, the operative should work in a different area, some distance away from the resident’s home.
25. The landlord has instructed the repairs operative not to communicate with the resident and it should ensure this instruction is followed. It has given the resident a named contact at the landlord for all of her service requests. The landlord has explained to this service that it has reviewed how it investigates allegations of misconduct. It says it will be delivering safeguarding training to all housing staff and contractors and improve channels for people to report safeguarding concerns. It says it will develop and promote a list of agencies locally where survivors of abuse can receive appropriate support and advice. The landlord admitted it had assumed that the resident would seek support from her scheme warden or housing officer but acknowledged it should have made a referral to a specialist support agency. It confirmed it had made a safeguarding referral on 12 January 2023.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaints

26. Once the resident’s complaints entered the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, the landlord generally issued its responses in a timely manner even if it did not always meet the targets as set out in its formal feedback procedure. Any delays were communicated to the resident, which was the correct approach from the landlord.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response issued on 21 October 2022 did not adequately acknowledge or address the concerns that had caused the resident to complain. The response focused on the reasons for the delay to the response and for the response being issued in writing, including the resident’s own part in these reasons. It is not clear if the landlord expected to respond to the complaint in a format other than a written format. The substance of the original complaint was addressed in 1 sentence. There was no apology or remedy offered. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had properly recognised its failings or the impact on the resident. This was poor complaint handling from the landlord, especially given the serious nature of the complaint.
28. The stage 2 complaint response issued on 3 November 2022 handled the complaint significantly better than the stage 1response did. It acknowledged some of the issues and their impact on the resident. It apologised and outlined steps the landlord had taken, or was willing to take, in order to remedy the issues. There was no offer of financial compensation, but otherwise the complaint response went further to adequately handle the complaint.
29. The stage 1 complaint response on 26 January 2023 largely responded to the resident’s concerns with the landlord’s handling of the meeting on 30 November 2022. It did not agree with the resident’s assessment of what happened during the meeting, but it did investigate the concerns and communicate its findings. The stage 2 response issued on 16 February 2023 added little to the stage 1 response but gave information about 2 further steps the landlord had taken to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord may not have agreed with the resident’s statements about the landlord’s treatment of her at the meeting, but it should have gone further to empathise with the resident’s perspective. It should have reflected on how its actions affected the resident, particularly the approach to be firm and assertive in the meeting, as set out above.
30. The landlord has stated to this service that it had not received a request for compensation from the resident and that it had not refused to make an award. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not make an offer of compensation where this has not been requested by residents. This is poor practice. Residents may not always be aware of the type of remedies that may be available to them so they may not know what to request. They should not have to request compensation or any specific form of remedy in order for a landlord to fully assess ways of providing appropriate redress.
31. This service has assessed that the text messaging incident and the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns have been likely to have had a significant impact on the resident that has the potential to be long-term. An offer of financial compensation has been deemed appropriate in this case. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests an award of £800for distress and inconvenience would appropriately recognise the impact of severe maladministration that has had a severe and long-term emotional impact on the resident.

Determination

32. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Orders

33. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £800 in financial compensation. This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by staff conduct and the landlord’s failures in handling the resident’s concerns. This payment should be made to the resident’s bank account within 28 days of the date of this determination.
34. The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failures in handling her concerns about the conduct of a member of its staff. The landlord should consider issuing the apology from a member of staff in a senior position. The apology should address:
    1. the conduct of the repairs operative;
    2. the apology letter that was delivered to the resident;
    3. the landlord’s handling of the meeting of 30 November 2022.
35. The landlord is ordered to conduct a review of this case. The review should be carried out by a member of staff in a senior position. The review should investigate and seek to address any potential workplace culture that could have led the repairs operative to believe that his behaviours were acceptable. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with its findings and conclusions, as well as details of any steps to be taken, within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

36. The landlord should review its compensation policy to ensure it is in line with good industry practice and the Ombudsman’s established approach. In particular, it should review its requirement of residents to request financial compensation from the landlord before the landlord considers payments as an appropriate form of redress.
37. The landlord should put in place any reasonable safeguards to ensure that the repairs operative has no reason to be near the resident or her home during the course of carrying out any of his normal duties.