Saffron Housing Trust Limited (202215304)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215304

Saffron Housing Trust Limited

17 April 2024

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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about its communication and call handling.
   2. Handling of the complaint.

Background.

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 30 May 2022. The property is a one-bedroom semidetached house. The resident suffers with PTSD, agoraphobia, and depression. The resident has informed this service that his motor skills are also affected to do some tasks.
3. The resident applied for an “essentials grant” from the landlord to help him purchase a dishwasher to assist him with his day-to-day living. The landlord assisted him to complete the application form on 25 July 2022. On 29 July 2022 the landlord sent the resident a letter informing him that his application had been successful and that it would now arrange payment. It also said a member of staff would contact him in 2 months’ time to conduct an end of grant survey.
4. On or around 31 August 2022 the resident was contacted by a senior member of staff of the landlord.  He was informed that the grant approval had been declined because a dishwasher was deemed as a luxury item. The resident raised a formal complaint by telephone the same day.
5. On 2 September 2022 “MensCraft” an organisation supporting the resident contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. They said that they had been supporting the resident since November 2021 due to his risk of suicidal ideation and social isolation. They queried why the application for the dishwasher had been withdrawn and explained that this had caused a significant step back in the resident’s mental health. They said the resident was now experiencing suicidal ideation as well as self-harming due to the anxiety and distress of having to deal with the issue. The landlord responded to “Menscraft” a few days later. It contacted the resident by telephone on 1 and 8 September 2022 to explain its position and apologise. It then issued its stage 1 response on 15 September 2022.
6. The landlord’s stage 1 response upheld the resident’s complaint. It said that it sincerely apologised for its miscommunication in regard to the grant. It said that it had spoken to its tenant services team about the contact and misinformation he had received.  It confirmed that the team would investigate and contact the resident directly to discuss. It explained that the resident had until April 2023 to use the grant and it provided a named person for him to contact when he wanted to order the dishwasher.
7. On 19 September 2022 the resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2. He said that he had been given incorrect information about the grant by the operations manager. The manager “displayed a disregard for equality and he did not like her attitude”. The operations manager had deliberately failed to answer the resident’s call. She then called the resident back to avoid the call being recorded.  He considered he had been lied to as no one recognised that he had been sent a letter confirming acceptance of the grant. A further discussion about the dishwasher with a staff member after this had been clarified had made him “feel upset”.
8. On 12 October 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It confirmed the funding had been approved and that the miscommunication happened internally.  It upheld this aspect of the complaint and apologised. It believed that it was a genuine mistake on its part with no intention of deceit. Its officers believed that they were relaying the correct position however it had incorrectly told the resident that the grant had not been approved.  It apologised again for its error.
9. Its investigation revealed that its senior member of staff was not aware of the resident’s mental health disabilities until the end of the call. By this time the call could not continue due to emotive language. It did not consider that its staff member had disregarded equality, but it apologised that the resident did not like her attitude. It had been assured that she was unable to answer the phone when the resident called her. She returned the call because she became aware that the resident wanted to speak to her. Due to how busy its staff could be it did not doubt this version of events. It did not therefore uphold this aspect of the complaint.
10. It apologised that its other staff member had made the resident feel upset. It had investigated this and concluded that the staff members intention was to find out more information about the dishwasher to enable it to purchase the item for the resident. It said that it would be recommending that its grant approval procedure and associated system were reviewed also to reduce the possibility of either of these issues occurring again in the future.
11. The landlord offered £200 compensation for its failings. £100 for the distress caused for its miscommunication. £100 towards the delivery and installation of his selected dishwasher as a gesture of goodwill. The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service. He did not agree with the landlord’s version of events. In particular the manager stating she was unable to answer his call and had to call him back.

Assessment and findings

Communication and call handling.

12. The Ombudsman will not look at an individual staff member but will look at the organisation’s response. It is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
13. It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident. Its adverse impact on his welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around damage to his health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
14. It is further acknowledged that the resident advised this Service that his requests for recordings of telephone calls had not been responded to. The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the correct body to assess a landlord’s compliance with information requests made under a subject access request (SAR) so this would need to be followed up with the ICO.
15. The landlord acknowledged that a member of staff had incorrectly advised the resident about the outcome of the grant within its stage 1 response. It apologised which was appropriate. It did not however explain what went wrong.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did however go further to put the matters right. It investigated its communication and call handling and clearly explained its position which was appropriate. It is acknowledged that the resident did not agree that the landlord’s response was a true reflection of what happened. While this Service does not dispute the resident’s version of events it considers that the landlord’s response was proportionate based on the information available to it.
17. To encourage further learning it would be reasonable for the landlord to complete a review of its grant approval procedure and associated system. It could then share the outcome with the resident to offer some reassurance that this will not happen again in the future. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
18. The landlord acknowledged its failing and appropriately offered redress. The landlord’s compensation policy states all compensation will be decided on an individual basis considering the specific circumstances.
19. The evidence shows that the resident was clearly distressed by the landlord’s error in its communication. The resident was vulnerable the details of which the landlord had on its records. As a result of the failing the resident felt that he had to reach out for support from a third party who contacted the landlord on his behalf.  This caused distress to the resident.
20. The landlord responded promptly to the third-party communication to try to resolve the matter and within a week the resident’s concerns had been responded to and its error explained. Furthermore, it acknowledged its failing within its complaint response and offered redress to try to put matters right.
21. It offered a £100 for the distress and inconvenience. It offered a further £100 as a good will gesture to assist the resident to make up the shortfall from the grant so that he could purchase a dishwasher. This showed that it had listened and had sought to resolve the matter. Taking all of these factors into consideration this Service finds £200 reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its communication and call handling.

Complaint handling

22. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
23. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 1 complaint. Its stage 1 complaint response was only 1 day outside of its policy timeframe.
24. The landlord’s stage 1 response agreed that it had failed in its communication about the grant. It failed to set out learning to re-assure the resident that it would not happen again. The landlord’s response said it would update the resident following an investigation by the relevant team.  This did not evidence that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns seriously which was a missed opportunity to resolve matters at an earlier stage.
25. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the stage 2 escalation in accordance with its policy.
26. The landlord’s complaint policy states that 2 senior managers will undertake the review at stage 2. One senior manager will lead the investigation and one will act as an independent reviewer. The resident will be given the opportunity to speak to the lead reviewing senior manager if he wishes too.
27. The landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement sent to the resident confirms the names of the 2 managers who would be investigating the complaint. The acknowledgement letter did not specify who the lead investigator was.
28. The landlord’s records clearly show that a manager did call the resident to discuss the stage 2. However, the records do not show that either of the 2 named managers in the acknowledgement letter called the resident. This would have caused some confusion for the resident. Furthermore, the resident informed this Service that he had asked to speak to the lead investigator when a manger called him but had not been given that opportunity.
29. The landlord should ensure that if any of the named mangers change during the complaint process, it clearly communicates this to the resident to avoid any confusion. An order has been made in respect of this below.
30. In summary the landlord’s stage 1 response could have provided an explanation of why it had miscommunicated to ensure learning and provide reassurance it would not happen again. That it did not was a failing.
31. The landlord correctly however sought to put matters right within its stage 2 response. It evidenced that it had investigated its communication and call handling and explained its position.  It provided a meaningful apology where it recognised its failing.  It also tried to put matters right by offering redress.
32. The landlord did not however provide clear information about which managers were investigating and who the lead manager was.  It did not ensure that the resident was able to speak to a lead manager to discuss the complaint. This was not in accordance with its policy. This would have caused some uncertainty for the resident particularly given his vulnerabilities. It would not have however impacted the overall outcome of the complaint. For this reason, the Ombudsman considers this to be a service failure.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its call handling and communication.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders.

35. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £50 in compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
36. Within 4 weeks the landlord should remind all of its complaint staff of the importance of ensuring that any changes made to any of the named members of staff handling a complaint must be clearly communicated to the resident. Confirmation that it has done this should be sent to this Service also within 4 weeks.

Recommendations

37. Within 4 weeks the landlord should pay the resident £200 redress it offered in its stage 2 response if it has not done so already
38. Within 6 weeks the landlord should complete a review of its grant approval procedure and associated system. It should then share the outcome with the resident also within 6 weeks.