Clarion Housing Association Limited (202109046)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109046

Clarion Housing Association Limited

23 January 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:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns related to staff conduct.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant with the landlord. The tenancy began 1 March 2021, and the property is a one bedroom flat.

Summary of events

3. The resident contacted the landlord on 27 May 2021 about:
   1. Staff behaviour and comments made to her.
   2. Outstanding repairs This matter has already been investigated by this service as a separate case.
4. On 8 July 2021 the landlord sent its stage one response. It said that:
   1. The resident had alleged several members of staff had said “I don’t trust you”, had “spread rumours” and put pressure on the resident to accept the property that was offered to her. It said that the resident was unable to give any further details or provide specific dates and times of when these situations/conversations took place.
   2. The landlord explained it had contacted it’s Head of Housing and line mangers regarding the situation the resident described, however it was unable to provide any further details of the investigation outcome due to General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).
   3. The landlord offered £50 compensation for its delay in responding.
5. On 19 July 2021 the resident escalated her complaint because:
   1. She remained dissatisfied with the response given regarding her staff complaint was inadequate and did not address all the members of staff complained about.
   2. She was seeking:
      1. More information about how the staff complaint was handled.
      2. For all staff complaints to be acknowledged and addressed
      3. £600 compensation for the inconvenience, stress, and delay in resolving the repair issues and staff complaints
6. The landlord sent its final response on 16 September 2021. It explained:
   1. It had listed the members of staff in the resident’s complaint, noting that two additional members had been added to the complaint. It said that although it had missed off one staff member from its stage one response there was no record of the resident raising a complaint with them for the second member of staff. It apologised for the oversight.
   2. That it had spoken to its members of staff regarding the issues the resident described and reviewed the action they took in relation to delivering a service to the resident. It found no breach of policy.
   3. It was its policy that due to GPDR it does not provide specific information on internal discussions with its employees after a customer complaint.
   4. That one of the resident’s complaints about a particular staff member alleged to have taken place six years ago and was therefore outside the timeframe for investigating this particular part of the complaint. It did however speak to the member of staff “who has no recollection of any incident”. No further action would be taken as it could not be substantiated.
   5. That the incident whereby the staff member said “I don’t trust you” was a face to face conversation and there was no evidence to review and could not be substantiated.
   6. Although it may not be taking action on these instances it takes complaints against staff seriously. It apologised that the resident was not happy with the interaction with its staff and it strived to provide a “high level of customer service”. It continued, “feedback is always welcomed and training provided” to ensure high standards are maintained. 
   7. It confirmed approval had been given for a new worktop and sink and additional repairs to the toilet. It said that its contractors will make direct contact to arrange a convenient time to carry out the works.
   8. The amount of £600 compensation the resident had requested was outside of its policy. It said that the £50 offered in its stage one was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy.
   9. In recognition for the continued delay in responding at stage two and having missed the complaint about a member of staff from its investigation it awarded a further £125
7. The landlord directed the resident to contact this service should she remain dissatisfied with its response.
8. The resident contacted this service on 16 July 2021 regarding this issue.

Assessment and findings

Staff Conduct

9. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not happen, it is to consider whether the actions taken by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances.
10. This investigation will therefore assess whether the landlord responded appropriately to a given situation and decide whether its actions were fair and reasonable, taking all the circumstances of the case into account.
11. In its stage one response the landlord sited GDPR as the reason for not being able to provide more details to the resident regarding the investigation outcome. The main aim of GPDR is to increase an individual’s control and rights over their personal data. Simply, the regulation applies to organisations that collect or process individuals personal data. Therefore, it was reasonable of the landlord not to specifically name an individual or what was discussed in its investigation outcome.
12. This service notes that the resident was not able to provide specific dates or times of when the incidents had occurred which would have made it difficult for the landlord to carry out a more in depth investigation.
13. Nevertheless, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided details of what action it took to investigate, for example, explaining it interviewed staff members involved and what action it could take to put things right should it have identified any issues of concern.
14. In its stage two response it provided more details as to its investigation process and explained its policy relating to GDPR. Although it did not give specific details as requested by the resident it did explain that it had spoken with those members of staff and their managers. This was evidenced by internal emails seen by this service. It reviewed the actions they took to ensure there was no breach of policy in the service delivery to the resident. This was fair given there were no specific dates or times provided by the resident for the landlord to investigate.
15. It was right for the landlord to explain to the resident in its stage two response that although it would not be taking any further action, it does take staff complaints seriously, and that the feedback was welcomed and training be provided to ensure high levels of customer service are maintained.

Complaint handling

16. This services’ complaint handling code states responses to stage one complaints should be provided within 10 working days of receipt and stage two responses provided within 20 working days from the day it was requested to be escalated.
17. The resident made her stage one complaint on 27 May 2021 and the landlord responded on 8 July 2021. This was 42 working days later, which is significantly more than the 10 working days detailed in the complaint handling code. The landlord did however recognise its delay and service failure by awarding £50 compensation. This was in line with its compensation policy and is therefore be considered reasonable redress.
18. The landlord sent its final response on 16 September 2021 which was 59 days after the residents request to escalate. This was not reasonable and not in line with this services complaints handling code which should say responses be provided within 20 working days.
19. The landlord said that it could not offer the £600 compensation that was requested by the resident as this was outside of its policy for the issues complained of. It therefore offered a further £125 made up of £25 for the delay in providing a response at stage two and £100 for the resident having to repeatedly chases a response and correction for its mistake in missing part of her complaint. This was both fair and reasonable, within the parameters of its compensation policy.
20. It is evident that in the end, the landlord had applied the dispute resolution principles to be fair in its processes and putting things right by way of offering compensation for its response delays.

Determination (decision)

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint relating to staff conduct.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has provided reasonable redress for its delays in responding to the residents stage one and stage two complaints.

Reasons

23. The landlord has demonstrated that it has took the resident’s concerns regarding its staff conduct seriously and investigated accordingly with the information it was provided.
24. The landlord acknowledged its stage one and stage two responses to the resident were delayed. It was appropriate therefore that it apologised and reasonable that it offered compensation to reflect the distress caused by these delays. The compensation of £175, (made up of £50 and £125) in relation to its complaint handling was, in line with its compensation policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance and constituted appropriate redress for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

25. The landlord to, within four weeks of the date of this determination:
    1. If not already done so, pay the resident the £175 compensation already offered.