The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202225861)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225861

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

28 February 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 handling of reports about staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the property as an assured tenant since July 2021. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, which is within a complex of flats.
  2. On 29 September 2022, the resident complained that a member of the landlord’s staff, who works at the complex of flats, had been verbally abusive to him. The landlord said it would investigate and asked the resident to provide details of any witnesses. The landlord said the staff member would work at an alternative site while it investigated.
  3. On 14 October 2022, the landlord issued a warning letter to the resident about his behaviour towards another member of the landlord’s staff.
  4. In its complaint response on 25 October 2022, the landlord said as part of its investigation it had spoken with witnesses, checked CCTV, and interviewed the staff member. It said as there was no supporting evidence, the staff member would return to work at the flats.
  5. On 2 November 2022, the resident told the landlord he was not happy with the outcome of its investigation, and he made further allegations about the staff member. In its final response on 2 December 2022, the landlord said it was satisfied the investigation had been carried out in full, and it had responded appropriately in its first response. It said it would monitor the situation but as there was no further evidence, it would not be making any further comment.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman. He said the landlord had not investigated thoroughly, and he wanted an explanation of the investigation and an apology. He also wanted the allegations about his behaviour taken off the landlord’s records, and the member of staff removed from working at the flats.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether there was staff misconduct. Instead, the Ombudsman can determine whether the landlord investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its policy, and whether the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out how it will investigate complaints, including those about staff conduct. The policy says it will respond to initial complaints within 5 working days, and where a complaint is escalated, the landlord will respond within 10 working days. The Ombudsman has noted that the response times in the landlord’s policy are shorter than those in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which are 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2.
  3. The Ombudsman acknowledges that complaints involving allegations and counter-allegations about behaviour, sometimes with little corroborating evidence, can be the most difficult for a landlord to resolve.
  4. Records provided by the landlord show that another resident was present when the resident first made his complaint on 29 September 2022. The other resident told the landlord he witnessed a “confrontation” between the staff member and resident but did not hear what was said. The resident said a third resident also witnessed the incident.
  5. At the meeting, the landlord said it would investigate the allegations and asked the resident for further details. It said it would get a witness statement from the third resident and would view CCTV footage. However, it said CCTV footage did not contain an audio recording. The landlord also said it would move the staff member to another site while it investigated the complaint. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord’s initial response to the complaint was reasonable.
  6. The landlord’s first response was sent on 25 October 2022, which was 26 working days after the complaint was made. This was significantly outside the 5 working day timescale set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord met with witnesses and the staff member as part of the investigation. It said it also viewed the CCTV footage. The Ombudsman accepts this would have taken time and although the response was delayed, it was not an unreasonable delay in the circumstances.
  7. The landlord’s records show that before it sent its first response, it met with other residents to discuss the incident. However, based on the information provided, the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the landlord spoke with all relevant residents and what was said at these meetings. It would have been helpful if the landlord had made a record of the conversations at the time they took place and provided these to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers this point.
  8. The limited records that have been provided say other residents did not provide evidence that supported the resident’s allegations. These records also say that other residents made comments about the resident’s attitude towards the staff member. The landlord’s records also show that the staff member made counter allegations about the resident’s behaviour and the effect it was having on him.
  9. In its first response, the landlord said it had viewed the CCTV footage. It is accepted the landlord checked the footage, but the Ombudsman has noted that neither he nor the resident have been provided with a record of what was captured. It would be useful in cases like this for the landlord to make a written record of what the footage captured, as this may have provided assurance to the resident. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord considers this point.
  10. However, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord had already informed the resident that the CCTV at the flats did not capture audio. It is the Ombudsman’s view that it is unlikely that the footage would provide evidence that would be useful in a case that involves a dispute about verbal abuse.
  11. The resident escalated his complaint on 2 November 2022, as he did not believe the investigation had been carried out correctly. The landlord responded 22 working days later, on 2 December 2022 and said it stood by the position in its first response. It said it had acted swiftly to gather findings and was satisfied the investigation had been carried out in full. It said as there was no additional evidence, it could not add to what it had said in its first response. The Ombudsman has found that it was reasonable for the landlord to maintain this position because of the lack of additional independent evidence.
  12. The Ombudsman has noted that as part of the response, the landlord said it had visited the resident on 17 November 2022 to discuss the outcome of the investigation and the steps it had taken. The Ombudsman has found that this was a positive move for the landlord to take to try to resolve the complaint.
  13. Overall, the Ombudsman has found the landlord acted reasonably in the circumstances. As noted, cases with limited independent evidence and counter allegations are difficult to investigate. In addition, the Ombudsman is mindful that the landlord has an obligation to investigate the resident’s complaint and must balance this against its duty of care to its employee. Evidence provided shows the landlord responded in a reasonably timely manner and appears to have considered available evidence. It initially explained the investigation process and met with the resident to discuss outcomes. In doing so, it followed the complaints policy and acted proportionally. Because of this, the Ombudsman has found that there was no maladministration.
  14. The Ombudsman has noted that following the final response, the resident continued to raise reports about the staff member. There is evidence the landlord engaged with the resident, but it is clear there was a difficult relationship between the landlord and resident.
  15. While investigating this complaint, the resident told the Ombudsman that he wants to move to another property. He expressed his concerns about the relationship with the staff member. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the relationship between the landlord and resident has become very difficult, and it would be a positive move for the landlord to support the resident with his stated desire to move to another property.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the handling of reports about staff conduct.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord makes a record of the conversations with witnesses when investigating complaints about staff conduct.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord keeps a written record of what CCTV footage captures when investigating complaints about staff conduct.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord considers what action it can take to support the resident with his stated desire to move to another property.