Onward Homes Limited (202016955)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016955

Onward Group Limited

12 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of the behaviour of its staff during an inspection of his property.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He is represented by his daughter in the complaint; both will be referred to as the ‘resident’.
3. The landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 25 March 2021. Later that day, he emailed a third party, copying in the landlord, to express his dissatisfaction with the behaviour of its staff during the inspection. The resident said that the staff members arrived with no “prior knowledge of our ongoing situation” in relation to the mental health needs of a family member and behaved in a way which was “unprofessional, judgemental and… not empathetic to [his] families living condition”.
4. The resident said that the landlord’s staff found that there was damage to the property which was “not wear and tear” and “insinuated” that the condition of the property was due to his lifestyle choice and spoke in an “accusatory” and “belligerent” tone. He said the staff member “kept walking off whilst [he] was speaking to [them]” and “reluctantly” put on shoe covers at his request to access the first floor of the property. The resident described his household members becoming upset by the staff member being “extremely volatile” and “felt unsafe in their presence”. He relayed that the inspection was terminated and the staff members were “not willing to listen at all”.
5. The resident contended that the staff members involved should not work with ethnic minority or working-class people, as he felt that they did not have the “range” to be suitable in this job role. He requested that a second inspection be carried out by staff from an ethnic minority background.
6. The resident forwarded the content of the above email to the landlord on 30 March 2021 to raise his concerns as a formal complaint.
7. The landlord’s internal emails from 31 March 2021 recorded an account from one of the staff members present on the inspection on 25 March 2021. They said that the inspection became difficult when it was discussed that the “heavily water damaged” bathroom floor had been due to “water not being contained in the bath”. They said that it was at this point that the resident became “angry” and the staff members decided to terminate the inspection. The staff member asserted that the behaviour of both staff during the visit had been professional.
8. The landlord’s internal emails on 7 April 2021 noted that the resident’s household had “a number of issues relating to mental health”.
9. After speaking to the resident on 8 April 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response on 12 April 2021. It confirmed that it had spoken to both staff members present at the inspection on 25 March 2021 and apologised if the resident found any aspect of the visit unprofessional. It believed that this was not the intention of its staff. The landlord acknowledged that the visit had been “challenging” for both parties.
10. The landlord explained that its staff had terminated the inspection before completion due to experiencing unacceptable behaviour from the resident which included shouting and not observing social distancing. It explained that his observation of the staff members “walking off” during conversation was due to their attempt to maintain social distancing. The landlord found that its staff had conducted themselves appropriately and said that it had found no evidence of the resident’s description of the staff behaving unprofessionally.
11. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comment about the suitability of its staff for working with ethnic minority resident and assured him that it took “promoting inclusion and diversity extremely seriously” with education and training provided to staff concerning from its ‘equality and diversity lead’. It offered to provide him with details of this along with its equality and diversity policy.
12. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for a second inspection of the property by different staff and reminded the resident of the need for maintaining social distancing during the visit.
13. The resident emailed the landlord on 13 April 2021 to express his dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response. He questioned the evidence on which it had based its investigation and considered that it had not engaged with the substance of the complaint. The resident highlighted that the landlord had not acknowledged his point about its staff making a comment on his “chosen lifestyle” and that there had been no input from its equality and diversity lead in the complaint response. He therefore questioned how it had determined that it would not have been biased in its approach. The resident said that he would only accept the resolution of the complaint through payment of compensation for distress, acknowledgement of failure and an “illustration of changed behaviour”.
14. After acknowledging the complaint on 15 April 2021, the landlord called the resident on 23 April 2021 to seek further information on his complaint and emailed him on 26 April 2021 to ask for clarification on how the staff members present on 25 March 2021 had been unprofessional.
15. On 27 and 28 April 2021 the landlord carried out discussions with the two staff members present on the visit on 25 March 2021. It established that there was disagreement between them and the resident on the cause of damage to the property, and the inspection was terminated when lack of social distancing and increased shouting occurred.
16. On 29 April 2021, the landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident in which it acknowledged the resident’s strong feelings about the experience, and that the visit was “challenging for both parties”. Nonetheless, it said it had not found any evidence of the behaviour cited by him in his initial complaint on 30 March 2021. The landlord explained that it had asked about the resident’s lifestyle choices to determine the extent of rechargeable repairs to the property; it said it was not its intention to comment on his lifestyle.
17. The landlord said that it had identified learning from the resident’s complaint; specifically, to ensure that its staff were fully briefed of a resident’s needs in advance of a visit in order to be aware of any requirements. It said however, that it had found no evidence of its staff behaving in an inappropriate manner on the visit on 25 March 2021. The landlord confirmed that it had since carried out a second inspection and was progressing with the repairs required at the property. It confirmed that this concluded its internal consideration of the complaint.

Assessment and findings

18. The landlord’s complaint resolution policy provides for a two-stage complaints procedure with responses due within ten working days at each stage. If more time is needed then it will contact the resident to advise of this.
19. It should firstly be clarified that it is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine whether an event actually occurred, i.e. if a staff member acted inappropriately. The role of this Service is to determine whether a landlord responded reasonably and in line with its policy and legal obligations to a complaint about an event. Therefore, this assessment will consider whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s report of inappropriate behaviour from its staff. It does not seek to determine whether the resident’s or the landlord’s accounts of events was the more accurate.
20. When a landlord receives a report of its staff member acting inappropriately, it would be expected to investigate the issue fully and take appropriate action based on any evidence of inappropriate behaviour. It would be expected to consider all objective independent evidence of the events, alongside the resident’s and the staff member’s accounts.
21. In this instance, there was no independent evidence of the events on 25 March 2021, however there was evidence of the landlord making efforts on 23 and 26 April 2021, and on 27 and 28 April 2021 to gather information from both parties involved to investigate the issue. As the accounts differed, in the absence of any independent evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to state in its responses that it could not substantiate the resident’s claims. There was no evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part.
22. In the landlord’s final stage complaint response on 29 April 2021, it informed the resident that it had identified learning points from the complaint to ensure that staff were more adequately prepared for the needs of residents on visits. This was a reasonable response from the landlord which acknowledged the concerns raised by the resident.

Determination (decision)

23. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

24. The landlord made reasonable efforts to investigate the resident’s reports and it reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available.