Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Origin Housing Limited (202211585)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211585

Origin Housing Limited

17 April 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 the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s telephone calls which were disconnected.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 3 October 2022 the resident attempted to contact the landlord on four occasions, but the calls were disconnected. The resident said that on one occasion he called the landlord from a withheld number and was able to get through, but was disconnected again when providing his details. He raised a complaint with the landlord on the same day and stated that he hoped this was not being done deliberately. He also said that he had emailed the landlord requesting a call back each time he was cut off, but he had not received a response.
  3. In its stage one and stage two complaint responses, the landlord stated that:
    1. It had been in contact with its IT department and network provider and found four calls associated with the resident’s contact details. The network provider informed the landlord that the calls were listed as “abandoned” which suggested that the calls were dropped from the resident’s end. Therefore, there was no evidence available to suggest the calls were ended deliberately or due to a service failure with its systems.
    2. It was unable to locate the call made from a withheld number and requested further information regarding the time this call occurred so it could investigate further.
    3. It had contacted the resident the day after it received his emails, and this was within target timescales. The resident was able to make contact by social media or WhatsApp if he needed more urgent help and was having difficulty contacting it by phone.
  4. Following this, the resident stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s responses as it had not attempted to contact him about the time of the withheld call. He said that if the landlord had done so, he would have provided this information. Therefore, the central aspect of the complaint – the handling of the call from the withheld number – had not been addressed. The resident also stated he had provided details of the call handler and therefore the landlord could have traced the call without any further input from himself.
  5. In response to the further concerns raised, the landlord provided an updated complaint response. It stated that upon reflection, it agreed that the details should have been obtained from the resident at the beginning of the complaints process. It had reviewed its systems and found that an IT error meant the call from the withheld number was unavailable, as calls were only being saved for three weeks instead of a year. As such, it could not establish if the call was mishandled. It said that it had fixed this IT error and put processes in place to ensure this did not happen again. In recognition of the time, trouble and effort put into the complaint and for helping it to identify a service failure, the landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation.
  6. The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman in November 2022. He remained dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint as he believed that the landlord had failed to thoroughly investigate his complaint and had completed a dishonest and misleading investigation to avoid accountability. He also remained dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord.
  7. It is acknowledged that in December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to accept the £100 compensation offered to him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As a resolution to his complaint, the resident requested for the landlord to take disciplinary action against those responsible for failures in its service to him. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by the individual members of staff involved, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues.

Handling of the resident’s telephone calls

  1. The landlord investigated the handling of the resident’s calls by contacting its IT department and network provider to find out what happened to the calls. It received confirmation that the calls from the resident’s mobile number were not disconnected its end, and as such, there had been no failure in service. The landlord was unable to retrieve the recording of the call from the withheld number as it was no longer available at the time this was investigated. Therefore, the landlord was unable to establish why this call had disconnected and it reasonably concluded that it could not establish whether this call had been mishandled.
  2. While the Ombudsman understands that the resident may not have trust in the landlord’s responses, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord has withheld any details regarding the calls he made, or that it has purposefully misled the investigation to avoid accountability. As there is no evidence to show that the landlord mishandled the calls, no service failure has been identified.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident has raised concerns that the landlord has not addressed all aspects of his complaint. Part of the resident’s initial complaint was that he had sent emails each time his calls disconnected, asking to be contacted urgently but he did not receive a response the same day. The landlord failed to address this matter in its stage one response and the resident had to go to the time and trouble of raising this matter again in his stage two complaint. The landlord provided an adequate response to this aspect of the complaint in its stage two response.
  2. The resident also raised concerns in his stage two complaint that the landlord had failed to adequately investigate what had happened to the call he made from a withheld number. The landlord failed to address this matter in its stage one response and in its stage two response it asked the resident to provide further details to enable it to locate the call. Following this, the resident raised concerns that the landlord should have obtained the relevant details from him at the outset of its investigation.
  3. The evidence provided for this investigation shows that the landlord was made aware by its IT department at the start of its investigation into the complaint that it would need the exact time the call was made from the withheld number in order for it to trace the call. However, the landlord did not attempt to obtain this information prior to issuing its stage one and stage two responses. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord identified this failing, reinvestigated the complaint, and provided an updated stage two response addressing this matter. By doing so, the landlord demonstrated that it took the complaint seriously and attempted to improve its relationship with the resident.
  4. The landlord also recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident by its complaint handling and attempted to put this right by offering £100 compensation. This was a reasonable and proportionate offer and was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests awards of this amount where there has been a service failure which has adversely affected the resident.
  5. The landlord also demonstrated that it had learnt from the resident’s complaint. This included taking responsibility for the issue in the call recording system and fixing this and arranging for training to improve the quality of its stage one complaint letters. This shows that the landlord has looked beyond the circumstances of the individual complaint and considered whether anything needs to be put right in its processes and systems for the benefit of all its customers.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s telephone calls.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that within the next four weeks the landlord pays the resident the £100 compensation it offered if it has not already done so.