Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited (202201298)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201298

Chelmer Housing Partnership Limited

12 December 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:
   1. Report about the conduct of an employee.
   2. Report that the expected work was not completed.
   3. Associated formal complaint and communication.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and occupies a 3–bedroom house with her 3 children.
3. On 24 December 2021 the landlord’s repairs engineer attended the resident’s home to install a new kitchen fan and stated that it did not need renewing. The resident told the engineer that the surveyor had instructed for the fan to be replaced and that he needed to complete the job. During the visit the engineer made a comment which the resident found offensive and perceived to be racist. The engineer was asked to leave the resident’s home.
4. The resident contacted the landlord the same day to complain about the conduct of its engineer. She spoke with the engineer’s supervisor who arranged to call her again on 10 January 2022.
5. In its stage 1 response on 11 February 2022, the landlord stated that its HR team were conducting an investigation into the employee’s conduct, and along with the issues of outstanding repairs, it would separately investigate how it responded to her concerns through its complaints process. It acknowledged that the repair work it intended to complete remained outstanding and offered to arrange for a female engineer to attend to complete the work. It acknowledged the impact that the situation had on the resident and apologised. It did not identify any service failure. It also stated that it would take appropriate steps to learn from the situation and minimize this from happening in future. The landlord explained that the HR team had concluded its investigation, but it was not appropriate to share the actions it had or had not taken.
6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response as it had not offered a gesture of good will and did not provide the outcome of the HR investigation. She also disagreed with the landlord’s finding of no service failure.
7. The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 4 April 2022. It offered an apology for the comment made by its engineer, the initial defensiveness of the supervisor, and for the distress this caused. It said it could have been clearer at various stages in its communication. It set out lessons learnt and in recognition of the distress caused and miscommunication it offered the resident £150 in compensation.
8. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response at stage 2 and brought her complaint to this Service. Her desired outcome was for the landlord to renovate her property, complete repairs, and increase the amount of compensation offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The landlord provided this Service with documents to demonstrate how it dealt with the employee’s behaviour through its internal processes. This report has not provided the details of this information as it is part of the landlord’s internal employee management process. This Service will not assess or discuss how the landlord’s HR team managed the employee’s behaviour. Our approach is in accordance with paragraph 42(h) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which provides that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.

Report about the conduct of an employee.

10. The landlord’s engineer commented, “everything in life is free isn’t it”, in response to the resident’s request that the fan is changed as originally agreed. It is not disputed that the comment was unprofessional in the circumstances and caused distress to the resident, or that it should not have been made in the first instance. While this Service is unable to conclude whether it was racist or discriminatory, we have considered the adequacy of the landlord’s response to the issue.
11. When there are failings by a landlord, as was the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
12. It was appropriate for the landlord to raise the resident’s concerns with its HR department given that the complaint was about an employee’s conduct. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord had not shared the outcome of the HR investigation, however, it would not have been appropriate for the landlord to do so under the terms of its disciplinary policy or ACAS code of practice. The landlord explained in its responses that it was unable to share the details of the investigation and provided its reasons why. The complaint was also appropriately raised with the landlord ‘Heads of Service’ who were involved in reviewing the complaint and deciding what action needed to be taken.
13. The landlord could, however, have gone further in its responses to reassure the resident that its investigation was thorough and that appropriate sanctions had been made. In an internal email of 23 March 2022, the landlord’s HR team suggested that while it could not share the investigation outcome, it could provide a summary of what an investigation and disciplinary would entail. This would include what potential outcomes may be. It may have been helpful for the landlord to have included this in its responses which may have provided the resident with some reassurance and a better understanding of the HR investigation.
14. The landlord’s stage 1 response acknowledged that the comment should not have been made. It recognised the impact the situation had on the resident. It apologised and assured the resident that it would take appropriate steps to learn from this and prevent it from happening in the future. Its response was therefore reasonable.
15. In the appeal panel review meeting the resident said that she wanted a proper letter of apology, an admission of failure and a goodwill gesture. The landlord’s stage 2 response acknowledged this and again offered its apologies for its employee’s comment and the initial defensiveness of the supervisor. It also apologised for the distress caused to the resident and her family and offered compensation of £150. The landlord’s apology and offer were appropriate and acknowledged what the resident had requested.
16. The landlord also demonstrated that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint and experience. It said the incident prompted it to provide its trades team with refresher training on understanding customer’s lived experiences and being more aware of how their behaviour can impact others. It also offered the service of its tenancy sustainment team to the resident following her disclosure of personal circumstances along with an offer of a female engineer for future repairs.
17. The landlord appropriately investigated the resident’s complaint about the conduct of its employee. A thorough investigation was undertaken by its HR team and appropriate measures were taken to prevent a similar situation from arising in the future. It recognised the distress caused to the resident and her family and offered its apologies along with a goodwill gesture in line with its compensation policy. It also demonstrated that it had learnt from the complaint by implementing training. For these reasons this Service finds that the landlord has made reasonable redress.

Report that the expected work was not completed.

18. The landlord’s repairs records of 8 December 2021 showed that an order was raised to replace the “noisy” envirovent fan in the kitchen. When the engineer attended, he advised the resident that the fan did not need replacing. The resident responded and said that the surveyor had raised the job to replace the fan and that the engineer should complete the job.
19. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it was mindful that the repair work it initially intended to complete, along with other works, remained outstanding. However, it failed to explain why the engineer may have stated that the fan did not need replacing when the surveyor had instructed for the work to be undertaken.
20. The landlord’s records of 1 February 2022 showed a timeline of events in which:
    1. The engineer had called his supervisor on 24 December 2021 to advise that the fan needed cleaning rather than replacing.
    2. The supervisor checked who had raised the works and found a surveyor had requested the fan to be changed.
    3. The supervisor asked the engineer to replace the fan and let the resident know, however, the engineer said he did not have a fan in stock on his van.
    4. The supervisor had asked for a fan from its delivery supply chain and said to let the resident and its planners know what was happening. The engineer had told the resident that a new fan would sound very similar, but the resident wanted it changed.
21. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that with regards to the engineer not carrying out the work that had been identified by the surveyor, this was not unusual. Its engineers were specialists, so when they visit someone’s home, they are best placed to identify whether the work is cost effective and if there is any benefit to its customers. Its surveyors should have made this clear and not suggested that work would definitely be done.
22. While the landlord provided an explanation for why the expected work may have changed it was evident that the resident’s expectations were for the fan to be replaced. This had led to frustrations between the resident and the engineer which resulted in the comment being made by the engineer and him being asked to leave the resident’s home. The landlord offered to send a different engineer the same day to complete the repair, but the resident declined. 
23. It is not clear whether the engineer communicated that the fan would be replaced as outlined in the landlord’s timeline from 1 February 2022. While the landlord did provide an explanation in its response, it could have gone further to clarify what repairs would be undertaken and when. For this reason, this Service finds service failure in relation to the expected repair.
24. While not part of this complaint, in correspondence with this Service, the resident made reference to her home being in disrepair, repairs never being adequately completed and that there are many repairs outstanding to her home. She stated that there were problems with the roof, walls, damp, leaks, cracks and doors. The resident should consider making a formal complaint to the landlord if she is not satisfied about its handling of any reports, she has made in relation to these issues. Recommendations have been made in relation to this below.

Associated formal complaint and communication.

25. The landlord operates a two–stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are reviewed at an appeal panel review and then responded to within 5 working days.
26. The resident initially raised her concerns with the landlord on the day of the incident and spoke with the engineer’s supervisor. She said the supervisor arranged to call her on 10 January 2022 to discuss the incident further but failed to do so and this was a service failure by the landlord. She also believed there to be service failure from her call on 24 December 2021 whereby the call handler had advised she would receive a call from a manager within 48 hours.
27. The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it found that the supervisor was professional, had attempted to contact the resident on the agreed date, and established a clear line of communication and therefore found no failure.
28. Its stage 2 response said its records demonstrated that the supervisor had attempted to call at 6.20pm on 10 January 2022. It acknowledged that the time may have been later than the resident had expected. The supervisor had sent a text on 12 January 2022 asking the resident to get in touch. The landlord acknowledged that the supervisor should also have sent a text confirming that he had tried to make contact on 10 January 2022. It apologised for any miscommunication.
29. The landlord’s records indicated that it had investigated the resident’s claim that she had been promised a call within 48 hours from a manager. The record showed that the call between the resident and call handler had been listened to on 28 March 2022 and no timescale of 48 hours had been provided. The landlord considered it had met its timescale obligations as the supervisor had responded the same day that the resident made contact.
30. After discussing the resident’s complaint at the appeal panel the landlord understood that the resident had expected someone other than the supervisor to contact her. It could see how this miscommunication had caused frustration and led to her feeling like she was not being listened to or taken seriously. It apologised and acknowledged this in its stage 2 response.
31. The resident said that it had taken the landlord weeks to log her formal complaint. The landlord explained, in its stage 1 response, that its HR team were investigating her reports of employee misconduct, and that it would address how it handled her reports along with outstanding repairs through its complaints process. It provided an explanation of how it was dealing with the resident’s complaint through 2 separate processes. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate the employee misconduct through a separate process with its HR team to the complaint about communication and repairs. Its response was therefore reasonable.
32. The landlord’s response to the resident’s dissatisfaction with its communication following her complaint was reasonable. It investigated her reports and acknowledged that her expectations of what would happen in relation to her complaint were different from its planned action, which led to miscommunication. The landlord apologised for this in its stage 2 response and said that there were several areas it could have handled differently. In particular, it could have been clearer at various stages of her experience so that its teams’ understanding of what had been agreed aligned with hers.
33. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, its apology and offer of compensation for its miscommunication was reasonable. This Service therefore finds that the landlord has made reasonable redress.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made reasonable redress in relation to the resident’s report about its employee’s conduct.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the expected repair work.
36. In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and its communication.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

37. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in compensation for the miscommunication in relation to the expected repair work.
38. Within 5 weeks of this determination, the landlord should provide evidence to this Service of the above.

Recommendations

39. The landlord should pay the resident the £150 offered in its stage 2 response, as this recognised genuine elements of service failure, and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.
40. The landlord should consider contacting the resident and arranging to inspect her home in relation to her reports to this Service about the roof, walls and other outstanding repairs.