London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202225451)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225451

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

31 July 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. This investigation is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about one of its officers.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
3. Evidence from the landlord shows that the resident started a legal claim against it in 2021 in relation to data protection issues. The landlord’s internal emails in June and July 2022 state that the claim was dismissed by the court, but that the resident subsequently appealed the decision.
4. In December 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about one of its housing officer’s conduct with one of his neighbours (neighbour A). He said that the officer had “told my neighbour to steal my rubbish.” He explained he had been told by another neighbour (neighbour B) that she had seen neighbour A taking the resident’s rubbish, and the resident believed this had been happening for 2 months. He explained a history of complaints about the officer in relation to an allegation he had previously made about her breaching his data protection rights.
5. The landlord sent its complaint response on 20 December 2022. It explained it had discussed the allegation with the officer, who had denied it and said she had not had contact with the resident for many years, nor had contact with neighbour A or given them the resident’s personal information. It said that without actual evidence there was nothing more it could do to investigate the resident’s complaint. It recommended the resident report his concerns about neighbour A to the police. It explained how the resident could escalate his complaint if he remained dissatisfied, and that he should do so within 3 days.
6. The resident hand delivered his escalated complaint to the landlord on 8 March 2023. He disputed the landlord’s explanation and reiterated his concerns about the officer’s behaviour, although he that clarified his complaint was not about the historic data protection issue. He also complained about only being given 3 days to escalate his complaint.
7. The resident contacted the Ombudsman in April 2023 saying he had not had a response to his escalated complaint. We asked the landlord to respond to him, which it did on 17 May.
8. In its response the landlord explained that the data protection issue was a historic matter which had been considered by the courts and dismissed, as had the resident’s appeal. Because of that, it said it would not investigate the resident’s complaint. It repeated its previous recommendation that he report his concerns about theft of his rubbish to the police, and acknowledged that it was an error to say he only had 3 days to escalate his complaint. It concluded by apologising for the resident’s need to complain, and offered £50 compensation for its delayed complaint response and the error in its first response.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He disputed some of the landlord’s explanations about the legal action, repeated his concerns about the officer, and complained about how the landlord had handled his complaint.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

10. While acknowledging that the resident has stated he is not complaining about the data protection issue, some elements of his complaint about the landlord relate to the facts of his legal action, including its status. For the avoidance of doubt, it should be understood that legal claims and decisions are not in the Ombudsman’s remit to consider or determine. Because of that, this investigation will not consider any issues in relation to historic or current legal proceedings, except in the context of the landlord’s explanation for not further investigating the resident’s concerns about its officer.
11. In his complaint to the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident referred to complaints he had previously made about its officer’s actions at least as far back as 2015. He explained these previous complaints were partly why he believed the officer had acted inappropriately in this case. These historic issues are not ones the Ombudsman will investigate now. Accordingly, this investigation focuses on the resident’s complaint to the landlord in December 2022 and the specific issue it entailed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about one of its officers

12. Based on the resident’s complaints, he did not witness anyone stealing his rubbish, and is relying on another witness’s account. He also did not provide any clear grounds on which he believed the landlord’s officer was influencing his neighbour, or evidence to support his allegation.
13. In response to the complaint the landlord interviewed the officer, who denied the allegation. It explained that in the absence of any actual evidence there was nothing further it could investigate. Given the unsubstantiated and hearsay nature of the resident’s complaint, there does not appear to be anything more the landlord could practically or proportionally do. Its explanation was clear, and nothing seen in this investigation suggests the landlord reached unreasonable conclusions.
14. In his escalated complaint the resident disputed some elements of the landlord’s explanations, such as how long the officer had worked for it, how he believed the officer was communicating with neighbour A, and the status of his legal action. He supported his disagreements with evidence. However, he did not provide evidence supporting his substantive complaint about neighbour A’s actions and the officer’s role in them. In the circumstances, these issues of dispute do not impact on the fundamental fact that the landlord’s conclusion was based on there being no evidence supporting the allegations and complaint.
15. In its final complaint response the landlord explained that the resident was making persistent claims about its officer, and if he continued to do so it might restrict his communication with it. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that he took this as a threat, which he believed was inappropriate of the landlord. All landlord’s have a vexatious or unreasonable contact policy of some form. If the landlord believed the resident’s actions were approaching a level of unreasonableness, which it clearly did, it was appropriate for it to warn the resident.
16. As no restrictions were put in place at the time of the complaint there is no further determination for the Ombudsman to make. However, if the landlord does put such restrictions in place it will clearly explain why it has done so. The resident would then have an opportunity to raise a complaint about its action, which he could ask the Ombudsman to investigate if he remained dissatisfied after receiving the landlord’s responses.

The landlord’s complaint handling

17. The landlord’s August 2023 complaints policy explains that it will respond to an escalated complaint within 20 working days. If it cannot do so, it will explain why and send the response within a further 10 working days. It also explains that a complainant has up to 6 months to escalate a complaint after receiving an initial complaint response. The same timescales appear to have been in the landlord’s previous policy at the time of the resident’s complaint in late 2022 and early 2023.
18. It was clearly an error for the landlord to say in its first complaint response that the resident had only 3 days to escalate his complaint. This appears to have caused confusion for the resident, because he approached the Service in January 2023 asking for assistance in the belief that he had missed the opportunity to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged its error, apologised, and offered compensation to the resident for the mistake. There was no appreciable delay caused by this issue, as the Service explained to the resident he could escalate his complaint, and how to do so, which he promptly did. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response to the error was proportionate and reasonable.
19. In his escalated complaint the resident referred to elements of his data protection claim, but specifically and clearly explained that the issue was not what he was complaining about. In its complaint response the landlord focused on the data protection issue. It explained it would not consider the resident’s concerns about the officer further because of the legal claim. It is unclear why the landlord took this approach to the issue, given the resident had made clear what his complaint was about. The landlord had sufficient grounds on which to make its position clear without referring to the data protection claim (as no evidence substantiating the allegation had been provided), and so this aspect of its handling was not reasonable.
20. The landlord acknowledged in its final complaint response on 17 May 2023 that the resident had delivered his escalated complaint to it on 8 March, and offered £20 compensation for the delay. It gave no indication of appreciating that: it had not acted in line with its complaints policy timescales, had not updated the resident explaining why its response would be late, or that the Ombudsman had needed to intervene on the resident’s behalf. Nor did it explain why the delay had occurred, or how it would ensure it would adhere to its published timescales in future. Its response was not reasonable, or proportionate to the scale of its delay and poor handling.

Determination (decision)

21. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about one of its officers.
22. In line with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

23. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about its officer was reasonable given the allegation had been denied and no supporting evidence had been provided.
24. There were several errors in the landlord’s complaint handling. It reasonably remedied its error about the escalation timescale, but did not acknowledge or provide reasonable remedies for its focus on the wrong aspect of the complaint or its delayed final complaint response.

Orders

25. In light of its poor complaint handling the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £200. This amount includes the £50 previously offered.
    2. Write to the resident acknowledging this report’s findings, and committing to handle any future complaints he makes in line with its complaints policy.
26. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service within 4 weeks of this report.