The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today. 

Newham Council (202111880)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111880

Newham Council

27 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 handling of a report of antisocial behaviour regarding the resident, which resulted in her receiving a warning letter;
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of an employee;
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has a secure tenancy, which started on 9 March 2009. The property is a one-bedroom, ground floor flat.
  2. The resident has visual, hearing and mobility impairments.
  3. On 23 April 2021, the landlord sent a warning letter to the resident due to a report of antisocial behaviour (ASB) emanating from her home. The letter stated that the landlord had received a complaint about “verbally abusive, aggressive and threatening” behaviour towards an employee. The letter went on to warn the resident that if the disturbances continued, further action would be considered, which could lead to the loss of the resident’s home. This Service has not been provided with the date on which the incident occurred and the warning letter did not include this information.
  4. The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2021 in response to the landlord’s warning letter, and complained that the landlord had not investigated the claim made about her. The resident therefore requested that the warning letter be removed from her file. The resident followed this up with a further email sent on 27 April 2021, in which she listed various other issues and also mentioned her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the report of ASB made against her.
  5. On 22 May 2021, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint dated 27 April 2021, and stated that it would aim to respond by 26 May 2021.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 May 2021 to report that the employee, who had made the allegation of ASB, was shouting outside her window. The resident repeated that she had not been given the opportunity to provide information as part of the landlord’s investigation into the alleged ASB, and therefore she wanted the warning letter removed from her file.
  7. The landlord replied on 1 July 2021 to say that it had investigated the matter and spoken to the employee in question. As a consequence, the matter had been escalated to the employee’s supervisor “to monitor [the employee’s] activities to establish your concerns and further actions to be taken”.
  8. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021 in reply to the resident’s emails of 26 and 27 April 2021. The landlord did not uphold the complaint, and clarified that it would not be pursuing any follow–up legal action in relation to its warning letter. The resident responded to the landlord on 5 July 2021 and asked for her complaint to be escalated.
  9. The landlord replied to the resident on 5 July 2021 and stated that in order to escalate the complaint, it would need to know what the resident was unhappy about. The resident responded on 6 July 2021 to say she had not been interviewed as part of the investigation that had led to the warning letter. She was therefore requesting the removal of the warning letter from her file.
  10. On 18 August 2021, the landlord sent its stage two complaint response, in which it referred to the resident’s email dated 27 May 2021 regarding her report of the employee shouting outside her window. The landlord stated that the matter had been passed to the employee’s manager, who had closed the case after the employee had “strongly denied the allegations”. The landlord concluded that the warning letter was felt to be necessary at the time, and could not be removed from its files.

Post completion of the internal complaints process

  1. On 19 August 2021, the resident wrote to this Service describing her dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s warning letter and investigation.
  2. On 22 April 2022, as part of its information submission to this Service, the landlord confirmed the following:
  1. The landlord accepted that a full investigation was not carried out prior to issuing the warning letter and therefore the matter was not dealt with appropriately;
  2. The landlord would contact the resident to apologise and to advise her that the warning letter would be “retracted”;
  3. The landlord would carry out a thorough investigation, which would be reviewed by the Director or Assistant Director of Housing;
  4. The landlord had arranged for “a full case review of this matter so appropriate recommendations can be made to ensure these errors do not reoccur”.
  5. The landlord suggested offering redress of £300 “for the distress, time and trouble caused” and a written apology to be sent to the resident;
  6. The landlord would contact the resident during week commencing 25 April 2022 to advise her about its plans to retract the letter and carry out a thorough investigation.
  1. The resident verbally confirmed to this Service on 9 January 2023 that she had not yet received an apology or compensation offer, nor had she been advised by the landlord that the warning letter would be removed from her file.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process, with responses required within 10 working days at stage one (with the possibility of extending by 20 working days) and 20 working days at stage two.

The landlord’s handling of a report of antisocial behaviour regarding the resident

  1. On 23 April 2021, the landlord issued a warning letter to the resident regarding a complaint of ASB made by an employee. The landlord accepted in its stage two complaint response that the resident was not interviewed prior to the landlord sending the warning letter and wrote: “I fully accept that there are two sides to everything and that on this occasion it would seem like this was a reaction to the incident and that due diligence could have been taken to speak to you about the concerns at the time”. The landlord also accepted in its information submission to this Service that a full investigation had not been carried out prior to the landlord issuing its warning letter.
  2. This Service would have expected the landlord to gather all relevant evidence as part of its investigations, which should have included evidence from the resident. The landlord’s failure to obtain evidence from the resident meant that it did not consider all of the circumstances of the case in order to reach a fair decision. The landlord’s actions were therefore unreasonable.
  3. The warning letter caused distress to the resident, as reflected in her emails to the landlord following receipt of the warning letter. The resident highlighted in her email dated 19 August 2021 to this Service that the level of distress had been exacerbated because of her vulnerability due to her disabilities.
  4. An order for compensation has been made by this Service to reflect the landlord’s failure to carry out an appropriate investigation prior to issuing the warning letter. Although the landlord recognised in its submissions to this Service that it had acted unreasonably and would offer redress, there is no evidence that it has actually done so. Therefore, it has not put right its earlier failings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about an employee

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 May 2021 to report that an employee was shouting outside her window on his phone and was making other noise by banging the railing and slamming the cupboard door. The landlord took 24 working days to reply, which it did so on 1 July 2021. This was longer than its timescales for dealing with complaints, but the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise to the resident for the delay. Furthermore, the evidence given to this Service indicates that the landlord did not contact the resident during the period of delay to explain the reason for the delay. The time taken for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint about the employee was therefore inappropriate, as was the lack of explanation given to the resident about the delay.
  2. In its stage two response, the landlord stated that the “allegations” against the employee had been put to the employee’s manager. The employee had “strongly denied the allegations” and therefore the case had been closed. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about individual members of staff. Any employment action is a separate matter for the landlord (or, if appropriate, its contractors) to consider. The explanation given by the landlord for not taking further action was brief. However, this Service recognises that it may not have been appropriate for the landlord to share the details of its investigation with the resident and has therefore not identified any service failure in the decision to take no further action regarding the employee’s conduct.
  3. An order for compensation has been made by this Service to reflect the landlord’s failure to reply to the resident’s complaint about an employee in a timely manner and its failure to contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay or apologise.

 

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 April 2021 to say that she was waiting to hear the outcome of various issues she had reported. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s email, confirmed it had been logged as a complaint and stated that it would provide a written response by 26 May 2021. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 2 July 2021, which was 46 working days after it received the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the acknowledgement and the actual response took significantly longer than the landlord’s target timescales.
  2. Although the landlord did apologise for the delay in responding and any inconvenience this caused, this Service has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord contacted the resident during the period of delay to explain the reason for the delay and to give a new timescale for responding. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code requires landlords to provide an explanation to the resident for any delay and a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. Additionally, if an extension beyond 20 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. It was therefore unreasonable of the landlord not to contact the resident to discuss an extension of time.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 July 2021 and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. The resident followed this up with a further email on the 6 July 2021 containing more information about the complaint. The landlord sent its stage two letter on 18 August 2021, which was 31 working days after the resident’s email of 6 July 2021 and was therefore outside of the landlord’s target timescale of 20 working days to respond. The landlord did not acknowledge, apologise or offer redress for the delay, and as with the stage one complaint, did not provide an explanation to the resident during the delay period itself. The landlord therefore did not deal with the delays during the complaints process appropriately.
  4. One of the main elements within the resident’s complaint was her request for the warning letter to be removed from her file. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord explained why the warning letter had been sent and said: “There is a record on file showing that a letter has been sent to you but regretfully, this cannot be deleted”. This Service would have expected the landlord to provide a clearer explanation of why the record could not be deleted from the resident’s file. Therefore, the landlord did not adequately address the resident’s request to remove the letter from her file, and this was therefore unreasonable. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states: “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”. The landlord’s failure to advise the resident why it could not withdraw the warning letter record from her file will inevitably have caused her uncertainty as to whether the landlord had upheld its decision to send the warning, or whether there was a technical reason it could not be removed.
  5. An order for compensation has been made by this Service to reflect the landlord’s failure to acknowledge or apologise for the delays in its complaints handling and for failing to explain adequately the reasons for its decision not to remove the warning letter from the resident’s file.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a report of antisocial behaviour regarding the resident, which resulted in her receiving a warning letter.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of an employee.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not carry out an appropriate investigation into the allegations of ASB regarding the resident prior to issuing her with a warning letter.
  2. There was a delay in the landlord replying to the resident’s report about the conduct of an employee, and the landlord did not acknowledge or apologise to the resident for this delay.
  3. The landlord did not acknowledge or offer redress for the delays in dealing with the resident’s complaints, and did not adequately address the resident’s request to remove the warning letter from her file.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £400 compensation as follows:

–          £300 for failings in the handling of the report of ASB against the resident;

–          £50 for delays in the handling of the resident’s complaint about an employee;

–          £50 for service failures in relation to its complaints handling.

  1. Remove the warning letter from the resident’s file;
  2. Write to the resident to apologise for not carrying out a full investigation into the allegation of ASB against her and confirm that the warning letter has been removed from her file;
  3. Carry out staff training to ensure that appropriate investigations are conducted before a decision is taken to issue a warning letter.