London Borough of Croydon (202310317)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310317

London Borough of Croydon

24 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. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of a complaint against the resident.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy which began on 11 August 2014. The property in question is a one-bed ground floor flat.
  2. Within its complaint submission for a separate ongoing complaint (case reference 202232244), the landlord said that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, it is evident that during the complaint, the resident made the landlord aware of several medical conditions that should be recorded as vulnerabilities.
  3. On 26 April 2023, a contractor visited the resident’s property to carry out a window repair. The repair was not completed and the contractor alleged that the resident was abusive and pushed them as they left the property. The contractor reported the incident on 28 April 2023.
  4. On 21 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and made him aware of the allegation made by the contractor following the visit in April 2023. Within the letter, the landlord quoted a clause from the tenancy agreement that related to abuse of staff/contractors.
  5. The resident responded to the letter on the same day and made a counter claim. He disputed the contractor’s version of events and said that the contractor had walked away and directed a racial slur at him as they left. The resident also contacted this Service on the same day to raise a complaint. The resident requested that the landlord remove the warning from his record and pay compensation.
  6. The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint on 8 September 2023. The landlord explained that the letter was a warning and no action would be taken. It explained that it could not investigate his counter claim, as the contractor no longer worked for it. The resident responded on 11 September 2023 and requested that his complaint be escalated for investigation at stage 2.
  7. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. The landlord reiterated that the June 2023 letter was not a formal notice, that it had to send the letter due to the allegation that was made but it said it would keep a record of his dispute. It also maintained that it was unable to investigate the matter further, as the contractor no longer worked with it. The landlord said it did not consider compensation appropriate following its investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is important to note that the purpose of this investigation is not to determine what happened on 26 April 2023 as, without conclusive evidence, this cannot be established. The investigation will instead focus solely on the landlord’s actions and whether these were reasonable in addressing both instances of complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint against the resident

  1. In considering the nature of the complaint, it must be acknowledged that it is only reasonable that both landlord and resident behaviour are open to review and that both should be able to raise concerns accordingly. The landlord’s complaint policy states that along with residents, this also applies to all its employees and those who deliver services on its behalf. As a complaint was raised by the contractor, the landlord was required to act on that report.
  2. It is clear that within the letter, dated 21 June 2023, the landlord made the resident aware of the allegation against him, explained the basis on which it had acted and detailed the potential outcome of further instances of this alleged behaviour.
  3. Had the resident made a similar complaint to the landlord following the incident with the contractor on 26 April 2023, further investigation would have been required prior to issuing such a warning. However, as the resident had not made any such complaint during the 7 weeks since the incident, it is understandable that it did not.
  4. Ultimately, it is the view of the Ombudsman that the landlord acted in a fair and reasonable manner by issuing the warning letter. Further investigation into the incident would have been required had the resident raised a complaint prior to its issue. However, in the absence of a contradictory report of the incident during the period afterward, it was understandable for the landlord to believe that there was no dispute to investigate prior to issuing the warning letter. On this basis, the Ombudsman found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint against the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. Within the resident’s complaint, he made the landlord aware of several medical conditions that would be considered vulnerabilities. It acknowledged these within its complaint response. However, it is apparent from its complaint submission to this Service that the landlord has not carried out any further investigation of these conditions. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord, as it should have contacted the resident to discuss this further and to amend its records accordingly.
  2. Within the stage 1 response, the landlord said that it was unable to investigate the resident’s counter complaint, as the contractor was no longer affiliated with it. Although this may have been the case when the stage 1 response was issued, it is unlikely that this was the case in June 2023, when the resident first raised his complaint. Had the landlord investigated the resident’s allegation at the time, it would have been able to carry out a full investigation, which given the nature of the allegation, would have been entirely appropriate. This is a service failing by the landlord which denied the resident a full investigation into his complaint.
  3. It must be considered that any potential investigation by the landlord would not have been able to ascertain what exactly had happened, without an account from an independent witness. However, this does mean that the resident was issued a warning around his behaviour when the contractor was not. On this basis, it is understandable that the resident would feel that he has been treated differently.
  4. In managing the complaints, it is clear that the landlord failed to provide responses in a reasonable timeframe, or in line with its own complaint policy. Its policy says that it should provide a response within 20 working days at each stage. The stage 1 response took 58 working days and the stage 2 response was issued 70 working days after the request for escalation. During these periods, the resident had to chase responses with the landlord and through this Service.
  5. It is understandable that in some instances complaint responses may need to exceed the timeframe set out in a landlord’s complaint policy. However, this should only be in more complex cases, or those awaiting required actions. It is the view of the Ombudsman that at both stages of this complaint, the responses provided by the landlord could have been offered and provided within the timeframe set out in its complaint policy. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord which led to the resident experiencing detriment in the time and trouble taken during the complaints process.
  6. It is evident from its responses that the landlord did not acknowledge any service failings when responding to the resident’s complaint. Although the resident’s initial claim was not upheld, the landlord failed to acknowledge the significant delay in its responses or the potential that said delays prevented a full investigation of the resident’s complaint.
  7. The landlord responded to the resident’s request for compensation and said that it did not consider compensation to be appropriate. However, given the failings identified in this review, it is the view of the Ombudsman that a proportionate compensation award should have been made.
  8. Ultimately, the landlord failed to manage the resident’s complaint effectively. Had it managed the stage 1 complaint in line with the timeframe set out in its policy, it would have been in a position to fully investigate the incident with the contractor. Instead, there were significant delays in the landlord’s responses despite it being in a position to provide the same responses much sooner. Given the service failings in the landlord’s management of the complaint, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint against the resident.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord should provide a written apology to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
  2. The landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £150 to the resident for the time and trouble caused by its handling of his complaint.
  3. The landlord should contact the resident to carry out a detailed review of any vulnerabilities and update its records accordingly.
  4. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days of this report.