Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202229573)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229573

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

17 June 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 resident’s report about the conduct of its staff member.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord since 25 December 2006. The property is a 1-bedroom flat and is on the second floor. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. On 26 September 2022 the resident called the landlord. He reported that a member of the landlord’s staff had verbally abused, pushed him, and made threatening gestures towards him. The landlord responded. it said it had viewed the CCTV and that there was no evidence to support the resident’s version of events.  It had however issued a warning to its staff member that he should walk away from any form of altercation.
  3. The resident requested a meeting to view the CCTV.  The landlord initially advised that the resident had to contact the police to view the CCTV footage.  It then provided a link to a form which he would need to complete to request the form. 
  4. In January 2023 the resident asked that his complaint be escalated to stage 2. He said he had not received a response to his request for CCTV. In February 2023 the landlord said it had not opened a formal complaint previously.  It sent a stage 1 response. It confirmed that it had viewed the CCTV footage. It was clear that there had been a verbal altercation. It could not see evidence showing that the resident had been pushed or that its staff member had made threatening gestures.  The resident had informed the landlord that the police were not taking any further action. It had issued a warning to its member of staff to walk away from any form of altercation in the future and to not engage in confrontational dialogue while representing the landlord. It had sent a link to the resident so he could request the footage of the incident.
  5. In February 2023 the landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response. It explained that when the resident reported the matter it was not aware that the resident wished this to be treated as a formal complaint. It had explained its response to the report in October 2022 and referred him to its digital team to request access to the CCTV footage. It had not heard anything further until the resident contacted in January 2023, so it duly raised a stage 1 complaint.
  6. It reviewed the matter again and it added that the CCTV did not provide audio evidence, so it was unable to substantiate whether any inappropriate language was used. It provided the same reasons as its stage 1 response and stated it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s report about the conduct of its staff member.

  1. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves were appropriate. Instead, it is this service’s role to decide whether the landlord adequately investigated and responded to the complaint, and took proportionate action based on the information available to it. For staff conduct complaints, landlords should carry out an investigation. This may include conducting interviews and gathering evidence from all parties, to make an informed decision based on its findings.
  2. The landlord appropriately investigated the incident reported by the resident.  It reviewed the CCTV evidence. It also interviewed its member of staff.  It responded within 11 working days which was reasonable given that it had carried out an investigation. It then appropriately explained its findings to the resident.  Based on the evidence it had it informed the resident that it had issued a warning to its member of staff. This showed that it was taking proportionate action based on the evidence. It also showed the resident that it had listened to his concerns. The landlord also sent the resident a link for him to complete a form to request a copy of the CCTV. It is noted however that the resident then requested it be sent to him in the post as he was unable to access the link. A recommendation has been made in respect of this below.
  3. In summary, this service is satisfied that the landlord demonstrated that it had acknowledged and investigated the issues raised. It had also clearly explained its position in respect of the evidence it had and what action it then took. This service is, therefore, satisfied that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

Handling of the complaint.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation or its staff.  The landlord should have therefore responded to the resident’s report about the conduct of a member of its staff as a formal complaint at the point he reported the incident. That it did not was a failing and not in accordance with its own policy.
  2. Its failure to raise a formal complaint would have been confusing for the resident and did not demonstrate that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously.  It is acknowledged that it had investigated the matter and provided a response. The resident was however confused as he believed that he had already received a stage 1 complaint response. When the resident raised his concerns again in January 2023 the landlord did raise a formal complaint which was appropriate. 
  3. The landlord also apologised in its stage 2 response for not raising the complaint at the point the resident reported the matter. The impact of this failing on the resident was of a relatively short duration and amounts to a finding of service failure. The landlord ensured that the issue was put through a formal process once the resident made contact again to advise of his dissatisfaction.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the conduct of its staff member.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days.
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in the complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.

Recommendation

  1. Send the resident the relevant form to request access to view the CCTV footage in the post if it has not done so already.