Newham Council (202002208)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002208

Newham Council

13 August 2021

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information following a Tenants and Leaseholder Forum and its response to her complaint about the same.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the tenant of the property which the complaint concerns. The landlord owns the property.

Summary of events

On 5 September 2019 the landlord held a follow up “Tenants and Leaseholder Forum” (the forum) to “obtain feedback from residents about the service [it provided], their expectations and what [was] important to them in terms of their home and neighbourhood”. The resident attended the forum.
On 30 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to request information and “forms” detailing the initiatives and funding which was discussed during the forum.
On 16 December 2019 the landlord responded to the resident. The landlord opened its response by apologising for the delay in replying to the resident. Within its response the landlord:
1. Provided a recap on the issues which were discussed during the forum.
2. Confirmed that it was looking to get more resident involvement.
3. Noted that four other residents had expressed interest in starting up a Tenants and Residents’ Association.
4. Confirmed that more information and guidelines on the initiatives would be available in early 2020.
On 2 January 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord in relation to the forum. The resident said that despite the landlord committing to providing residents with “information/ info packs” on all initiatives and funding opportunities discussed at the forum it had not done so. Within her complaint the resident added that the forums were “poorly managed and planned”.
On 20 January 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not confirm if its response was provided under its complaint procedure. The landlord confirmed that it had raised the resident’s concerns on the forum with its Head of Client Relations who confirmed “these would be taken into consideration as [it] continued to work on ways of delivering this service to [its] residents”.
On 21 January 2020 the resident responded to the landlord. In summary the resident said:
1. The initiatives discussed during the forum “must be ready” as “all information should be developed and reviewed to ensure accuracy before being mentioned to residents”.
2. It was “unprofessional” and “unacceptable” that no further information had been forthcoming to residents since the forum.
3. The landlord had failed to “acknowledge or provide a response” to the concerns which she had raised regarding the lack of further information on the initiatives and funding.
4. The landlord should:
  1. Provide information on the initiatives as a matter of urgency.
  2. Offer an apology to residents who had attempted to obtain further information on the initiatives.
  3. Review its communication with residents following a forum.
On 4 June 2020 the resident contacted this Service setting out that the landlord had failed to progress her complaint regarding the forum. In response this Service requested that the resident provide further clarity on the status of her complaint. The resident reverted to this Service again in early 2021 confirming that the landlord had not engaged with her complaint in relation to the forum.
On 2 February 2021, following contact from this Service, the landlord provided its final response on the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. The first forum held in the resident’s area was on 30 July 2019. The landlord set out that the purpose of the forum was “to obtain feedback from residents about their expectations and ways in which [it could] improve [its] service”. The landlord confirmed that the resident attended.
2. The follow up forum held in the resident’s area was on 5 September 2019. The landlord set out that the purpose of the forum was for it “to present the findings and results form the initial forum, find out what residents would like [it] to achieve going forward, confirm action that had been taken to address outcomes of the initial forum and for [it] to present ideas around potential engagement initiatives and obtain resident feedback and interest in relation to these”. The landlord confirmed that the resident attended.
3. During the follow up forum it introduced some of the “potential engagement initiatives” including “key details along with anticipated timescales”.
4. At the end of the follow up forum it explained next steps and confirmed that it wanted to seek feedback from residents regarding the potential engagement initiatives and level of interest. The landlord advised to do this it gave residents the opportunity to provide their contact details in relation to initiatives they were interested in. The landlord confirmed that it still held this information.
5. In the months after the follow up forum it “worked hard to resolve the high number of service requests and queries generated”, in addition to analysing the information and feedback obtained from the forums.
6. In early 2020 there was a change in staffing directly related to resident engagement and the appointment of a new Director of Housing.
7. Since March 2020 the Housing Service had focused on the effects and consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic which had resulted in changes to service delivery and some services being put on hold.
8. In order to ensure that its engagement was appropriate, value for money and meaningful it had awaited further direction and guidance from the Government, including the Social Housing White Paper in November 2020.
9. It had recently implemented a new structure in relation to resident engagement and involvement. The landlord confirmed that using the “valuable information” obtained from the forums, in addition to the guidance published by the Government, it had drafted a Resident Involvement Strategy which was currently going through internal approval processes. The landlord advised that the strategy was due to be launched in March 2021.
10. Results obtained from satisfaction surveys after the forums demonstrated that the significant majority of residents were content with the planning and management of the forums. The landlord provide satisfaction survey results.
11. There was no evidence that it had responded to the resident’s correspondence dated 30 November 2019 requesting further information about potential engagement initiatives. The landlord confirmed that the resident should have received a response.
12. There was no evidence that the resident had received a formal response to the complaint which she made on 2 January 2020. The landlord confirmed that this was not in line with its complaint policy.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it had not identified service failures in respect of the forums held, however it had identified a service failure in the handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed that it would therefore like to offer the resident £200 compensation for “any distress and inconvenience experienced as a result of failures in complaints handling”. The landlord also apologised in respect of its complaint handling.
As the resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s final response to her complaint she referred it to this Service for adjudication. The resident explained that the complaint remained unresolved as the landlord had not provided information or information packs concerning the initiatives and funding discussed during the forum.
Following the resident’s referral both parties agreed to see if the complaint could be resolved with the assistance of the Ombudsman. In response the landlord agreed to provide a letter to the resident providing an update on the initiatives and funding.
On 8 March 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident “regarding the outstanding issue in relation to [her] complaint”. In summary the landlord:
1. Restated the information provided in paragraph 10(a) to 10(g).
2. Explained that the “genuine unforeseen circumstances”, staffing changes and the Covid-19 pandemic, had resulted in the anticipated timescales set out in the forum not being met. The landlord confirmed that further information about the initiatives and funding had therefore not yet been provided as they had not yet been launched.
3. Explained that it had recently taken steps to ensure that “resident engagement and involvement” would be delivered. The landlord confirmed that this included a new Head of Resident Involvement and drafting a Resident Involvement Strategy. The landlord enclosed a copy of the Strategy.
4. Explained that its new Resident Involvement Strategy was due to launch in Spring 2021 with individual initiatives from its Resident Involvement Framework and Menu of Opportunities being launched across spring and summer 2021. The landlord confirmed that it was at this point the resident could expect to receive more information about initiatives and funding. The landlord noted that these timescales were anticipated and were subject to change as the Covid-19 pandemic was ongoing.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it hoped that its letter provided clarity as to why information packs relating to initiatives and funding had not yet been provided.
On receipt of the letter the resident confirmed to this Service that it had not resolved her complaint as it was “pure fabrication” and did not alleviate her concerns. The Ombudsman therefore confirmed that the case would be put forward for an investigation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 39(p) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which are about matters which relate to the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures.
The purpose of the landlord’s Tenants and Leaseholders Forum was to help the landlord shape and improve the services it provides to its residents going forwards. This relates to the way in which the landlord operates, is directed and makes decisions. Therefore, and in accordance with paragraph 39(p) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on matters discussed within the forum itself, including the initiatives and funding options presented, and timescales for implementation. In determining this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to determine if the landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s requests for further information following the forum and whether it responded to her complaint about the same appropriately.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information following a Tenants and Leaseholder Forum and its response to her complaint about the same

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the presentation which was given on 5 September 2019. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord committed to contacting residents in October 2019 who had expressed an interest in relation to the “opportunities/ initiatives” discussed during the forum.
In response to the resident’s request, dated 30 November 2019, for further information on the initiatives and funding discussed during the forum, the landlord responded on 16 December 2019. While it was appropriate that the landlord did respond to the resident’s enquiry, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response did not provide adequate detail in relation to the initiatives and funding. Specifically, it did not confirm why information was not provided in October 2019 as promised, and to explain why the timeline has been delayed until spring 2020. Had further clarification been provided, it would have provided reassurances to the resident and managed her expectations.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint dated 2 January 2020 on 20 January 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was unsatisfactory as it did not address the concerns which the resident had raised. Instead, the landlord only confirmed that the resident’s concerns had been passed forward for consideration. This is unsatisfactory as a complaint response should address the complaint which a resident makes, which the landlord did not do in this case. The resident was therefore left without answers to the concerns which she had raised. The response was also unsatisfactory as the landlord did not clearly confirm whether it was given under its complaint procedure or not. As the resident had clearly expressed that her correspondence dated 2 January 2020 was a formal complaint, the landlord should have engaged its complaint procedure.
The resident challenged the landlord’s response on 21 January 2020 and reiterated her request for further information on the initiatives and funding discussed during the forum. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord responded to the resident. This is unsatisfactory and will have resulted in frustration and annoyance to the resident, in addition to lost confidence. It was also a lost opportunity by the landlord to try to bring the matter to a close.
Following contact from this Service the landlord provided the resident with a final response to her complaint in February 2021. The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s response and is satisfied that the response appropriately addressed the resident’s complaint. This is because the landlord explained why further information had not been provided in late 2019 or early 2020 regarding the initiatives and funding and explained the steps it was now taking to progress resident engagement. The Ombudsman notes that the Covid-19 pandemic has had a major impact on the range of services which a landlord is able to provide and therefore some of its activities will have been significantly and unavoidably disrupted.
Within its final response the landlord also acknowledged that its response to the resident’s enquiry dated 30 November 2019 and complaint dated 2 January 2020 was unsatisfactory. As set out above, this is the Ombudsman’s opinion also. The landlord therefore apologised and awarded £200 compensation. Where a landlord acknowledges a service failure the Ombudsman will then consider if it has made an offer of redress to put things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate to the circumstances of the case. This takes into account that the matters subject of the complaint did not directly or adversely impact on the resident’s occupation of the property and the landlord’s offer was made in line with its compensation policy for service failures resulting in moderate impact.
Following the end of the complaint procedure, and in response to the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord provided the resident with a further letter regarding the current situation in relation to the initiatives and funding discussed at the forum. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s letter was helpful in reiterating the current position and to provide reassurances that while matters had not progressed in accordance with its original timescales, resident engagement was still an important issue which it continued to pursue.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made an offer of redress which resolves the complaint, as set out above.

Reasons

While the landlord’s response to and handling of the resident’s enquiry dated 30 November 2019 and complaint dated 2 January 2020 was unsatisfactory, the landlord has since identified and acknowledged its service failures, apologised and offered appropriate compensation (£200) in recognition of these. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this determination:
1. Pay the resident the £200 compensation it awarded if it has not already done so.
2. Write to the resident to provide an update on its resident engagement activities.
3. Share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints to ensure that they are dealt with in line with best practice.