Peabody Trust (202300529)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300529

Peabody Trust

29 April 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 the landlord’s handling of the response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during a house visit.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord. The tenancy for the current property began in October 1998. It is noted that the resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since 1971.
  2. The resident has psoriatic arthritis and reduced use of her right arm. The resident also notes that she is a survivor of domestic violence.
  3. On 27 February 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested a visit regarding an ASB complaint. The landlord responded on 6 March 2023 and arranged a visit to the resident’s property on 14 March 2023.
  4. The resident stated that two members of staff were present during the visit and one staff member (staff member A) allegedly “shouted” at her leaving her feeling “vulnerable and frightened”. Due to this the resident contacted this service and requested for it to make a complaint to the landlord on her behalf.
  5. This service contacted the landlord on 13 April 2023 and requested that it raise a formal complaint on behalf of the resident regarding the incident on 14 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 April 2023 and issued a stage 1 response on 3 May 2023. The landlord explained in its response that it did not have sufficient evidence to determine exactly what happened, however, after speaking with staff member A, it stated that they had “raised” their voice in a “corrective tone”. As the resident had informed the landlord she had evidence on her ring doorbell footage, the landlord requested this footage to investigate further. The landlord offered to send the resident a gift as a gesture of goodwill.
  6. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 4 May 2023 and further explained her reasons for doing so on 9 May 2023. She clarified that staff member A had shouted at her a total of “five times” and called her “petty” for her neighbour dispute. The resident did not agree with the landlord that it was “corrective”. The resident also reiterated that evidence of the incident had been caught on her ring doorbell camera and stressed that she felt the incident had worsened the physical symptoms of her arthritis.
  7. The landlord informed the resident on 15 May 2023, that its expected response date had been extended to 14 June 2023, due to high volumes of complaints. A stage 2 response was issued on 14 June 2023. The landlord stated that it was challenging to investigate the allegations made by the resident without substantial evidence and once again requested the doorbell footage. Once the landlord had received the footage it would conduct a further investigation. The landlord awarded compensation of £250 in recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience suffered by the resident. The landlord requested that the resident provide the doorbell footage by 28 June 2023 and it would then contact the resident by 30 June 2023 with the outcome of the investigation.
  8. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 21 June 2023. She explained that she felt the landlord had not conducted a thorough investigation as it had not considered the eye witness testimony of the member of staff (staff member B) who was present during the incident.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 21 June 2023 explaining that she was unable to send the requested evidence. She said this was due to concerns regarding her arthritis and that she may accidentally lose the footage if she were to attempt to send this to the landlord. The resident also clarified that the footage only caught 2 out of the 5 incidents of ‘”shouting” and she queried why the landlord had not spoken to staff member B regarding the other 3 incidents. The resident offered to show the landlord the recorded footage if it was able to arrange a visit to the resident’s property.
  10. The landlord responded to the resident on 29 June 2023. The landlord explained to the resident that staff member B was interviewed, however, their statement was not substantial enough for the landlord to take any further action against staff member A. The landlord proposed additional redress in the form of a written apology from staff member A. In the response the resident reiterated that she was happy to show the landlord the evidence but she was unable to send it. She also stated that she had thought about the offer of an apology, but the ”damage had been done”.
  11. In a further referral email to this Service, the resident added that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response as she had not received a written apology “as stated in the complaint response”.
  12. The landlord confirmed to this service on 12 March 2024 that a further investigation outcome was not issued as the resident had not provided the requested evidence. The landlord noted that its investigation during the complaints process involved speaking with the relevant staff members, however, the landlord did not have any written record of the discussions other than what was shared with the resident at stage 1.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. It should be noted that the Ombudsman does not consider or comment on how a landlord should deal with identified service failings by individual members of staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme says this Service will not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. When investigating a complaint about a member landlord, this service will consider the response of the landlord as a whole, and will comment on the actions of individuals only in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual. The Ombudsman will, however, consider how the landlord investigated a complaint about a staff member, and whether its investigation and responses to a resident were reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. While it is noted that the resident has stated that the effect of the incident has exacerbated her health condition, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. It is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct, causal link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during a house visit.

  1. The role of the Ombudsman is not to determine the efficacy of the landlord’s decision making in regard to any disciplinary matters taken, or not against staff member A. Rather, our role is to establish whether the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor conduct by its staff member was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. When a resident raises concerns regarding staff conduct, a landlord would be expected to carry out a fair and impartial investigation into the matter, and then take proportionate actions based on the investigation’s findings.
  3. The landlord was made aware of the resident’s concerns on 13 April 2023 by this Service. In response to this, the landlord began an investigation into the matter and spoke to staff member A and staff member B, who was present during the reported incident. Such an action was appropriate in the circumstances so as to allow the landlord to fairly understand the nature of the interactions between its staff and the resident from both perspectives. However, as the landlord did not keep a written record of these discussions, it is unclear to this Service what each member of staff was specifically asked, or the detail of how each staff member responded. Therefore, this Service is unable to conclude on the efficacy of the landlord’s initial investigation and whether this was reasonable and proportionate.
  4. Although the landlord stated it had spoken to staff member B who witnessed the incident, it did not share the general outcome of that discussion with the resident until after the stage 2 response was issued. The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord may not have been able to share specific information related to its investigation or any disciplinary measures taken, as this would involve confidential matters relating to the member of staff’s employment. However, given that this was a point of dispute raised by the resident on several occasions, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with information on how the account of staff member B influenced the outcome of its investigation, at an earlier stage. This would have addressed the resident’s concerns that a sufficient investigation had not taken place.
  5. For the landlord to have taken any formal action in respect of poor staff conduct, it would have required sufficient corroborative evidence of the alleged behaviour and the resident’s version of events. While it is not disputed that the resident felt discriminated against by staff member A, it is reasonable for the landlord to hold the position that it required sufficient independent evidence which objectively supported an allegation of inappropriate conduct in order to substantiate the resident’s account. As such, it was both reasonable and appropriate for the landlord to request further evidence in the form of the resident’s doorbell footage in order to progress the case against staff member A, as it stated it did not have enough supporting evidence at the time of the complaint to say for certain what happened during the visit. In the absence of this evidence, it was reasonable for the landlord to cease its investigation into the matter on the basis there was insufficient evidence and would be unfair to continue.
  6. Where there are known vulnerabilities present, the landlord should seek to make the necessary reasonable adjustments to ensure a resident is not prevented from accessing it’s services. The resident informed the landlord on 2 occasions after its request for the doorbell footage, that she did not feel she could send this to the landlord due to a flare up of her arthritis and concerns that she may lose the footage in the process of attempting to share it.
  7. She made it clear she was happy for the landlord to review the footage during a home visit. There is no evidence to show that the landlord responded to this request or sought to obtain the requested evidence by alternative means. This was a failure by the landlord, and as a result the landlord did not conduct any further investigation after 30 June 2023 as it set out in its stage 2 complaint response. In addition, if the landlord was unable to accommodate what was a reasonable adjustment to make, it should have communicated this to the resident and clarified the next steps in order to manage the resident’s expectations.
  8. It is of concern that, as part of the follow up to the stage two complaint response, the landlord had informed the resident that staff member A would provide the resident with a written apology, yet this did not materialise. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to work towards an improved landlord/tenant relationship. Therefore, it is recommended that the landlord takes the opportunity to make amends for this omission as part of the overall resolution to this case.
  9. Overall, while the landlord did take some action to investigate the resident’s allegations of poor staff conduct, the failure by the landlord to take pro-active action in response to the resident’s request for an adjustment in relation to its evidence gathering has resulted in a situation where the landlord is unable to conclusively provide a robust conclusion to the resident’s allegations against its staff member. As such, the Ombudsman finds there has been a service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during a house visit. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 in addition to the £250 offered for time, trouble and inconvenience in recognition of the failure identified.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints process consists of two stages. Stage 1 complaints are logged within 5 working days and responses are due to be provided within 10 working days.
  2. A response under stage 2 following an escalation should be made within 20 working days of the request being received. This time limit will only be extended if more time is required to complete the review in full. This should be communicated to and agreed with the resident.
  3. Following the stage 1 complaint made on 13 April 2023, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint and issued a response in accordance with its policy.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 4 May 2023. When the landlord became aware it would not be able to adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints policy, it appropriately notified the resident as such on 15 May 2023. The landlord also provided an expected response date. While the response was dated 14 June 2023 and a copy of the response was sent to this Service on the same day, the landlord had issued a copy of the response to an email address that the resident stated was “defunct” at the time.
  5. However, the evidence available indicates that the resident did have access to the email address and was actively using it, therefore would have been in receipt of the stage 2 response. In any case, the resident made contact with this service and received a copy of the stage 2 response on 20 June 2023.
  6. The Ombudsman finds no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling, as it had provided the resident with a copy of its response within the timescale it had set out in its extension email.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its response to its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct during a house visit.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
    1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the service failure identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in addition to the £250 offered in its stage 2 response.
    3. As this service has now received evidence to show the resident has shared the requested ring doorbell footage with the landlord, the landlord is ordered to review the footage and issue a response in light of this.