Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202110790)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110790

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

8 April 2022


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 concerns about the conduct of occupational therapists who visited her at her home.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord has a Disabled Facilities Fund designed to finance the cost of adaptation works to properties for residents with disability needs. On 29 April 2021 the landlord’s occupational therapists (OTs) attended the resident’s property to consider the grounds for adaptations she had requested. The OTs assessed that the request was not warranted on medical grounds.
  3. On speaking with the landlord in May 2021, the resident advised she was unhappy with the attitude and conduct of its OTs whilst at her home. A formal complaint was raised and a stage one response issued on 18 May 2021. The response included a letter signed by the OTs who had attended the resident’s property, which addressed some of the resident concerns. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the stage one response the complaint was escalated to stage two on 25 May 2021. A stage two final response was issued on the 16 June 2021. The landlord concluded that having spoken with its staff it was satisfied that their conduct had been acceptable.
  4. As the resident remained unhappy with the final response she asked for her complaint to be considered by a designated person who referred her complaint to this Service.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s role is not to establish whether the alleged behaviour did or did not take place. Rather, it is to look at the evidence and consider if the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns appropriately. The landlord noted that having spoken with the resident in May 2021 that it would follow up the resident’s concerns with its OTs. The landlord demonstrated that it took steps to discuss the matter with the members of staff involved. It obtained written responses from its staff members in response to the issues which the resident raised. Its investigation established that the versions of events differed.
  2. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 18 May 2020. It determined that without any evidence to substantiate either version of events it was satisfied, after speaking with its staff, that the resident’s concerns had been addressed. This was a reasonable conclusion if the landlord could not find independent evidence indicating that misconduct had occurred. It included a letter in which the OTs addressed some of the points which the resident had raised, and explained why it was decided that no adaptations would be made.  This was appropriate, as it helped clarify and explain to the resident why certain actions were undertaken.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint because she believed the landlord had misunderstood it. She explained that the complaint was not about the outcome of the assessment, but the way in which the OTs conducted themselves.
  4. The landlord issued a stage two final response on the 16 June 2020. It addressed the points of contention the resident had raised regarding the OTs’ conduct. It was appropriate for the landlord to address each issue separately, and in detail, as this demonstrated that it understood the resident’s concerns and treated them seriously. Its explanations reflected the investigations and enquiries it had made, and set out the reasons for the actions and questions made and raised by the OTs at the visit. It acknowledged how the resident had interpreted certain actions, and apologised for some apparent misunderstandings around the reasons for the visit, and the personal nature of some of the questions asked. These were all reasonable steps as they showed that, despite the different accounts of what had happened, the landlord treated the resident’s concerns seriously and investigated them thoroughly.
  5. A particular concern of the resident was that she believed that procedures weren’t followed correctly regarding her medical reports, because the OTs had not taken the resident’s documents with them. The landlord advised throughout its complaint process that its staff were unable to take paper documents containing personal and sensitive information, due to data protection rules and procedures (i.e. in line with General Data Protection Regulations). This was a reasonable explanation as it reflected the risk of any personal information being lost or stolen, and the landlord suggested other ways in which to provide the information.
  6. Although the resident advised that her complaint concerned the attitude and conduct of the OTs rather than the result of their assessment, the landlord noted in its stage two response that the resident continued to voice concerns over the accuracy of the assessment. Due to this the landlord made an offer to the resident its stage two response for a review to be undertaken by its team if the resident believed there were errors with the reporting. This demonstrates that landlord was resolution focused in its approach.
  7. It is very clear that the resident felt that the conduct of the OTs was inappropriate, and any frustration or distress she experienced is therefore understandable.  Nonetheless, based on the evidence provided, it is apparent that the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s concerns and was thorough and fair in its responses during its complaints process.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.