Sanctuary Housing Association (202107138)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107138

Sanctuary Housing Association

21 February 2022

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s response to the incident that occurred outside the resident’s property.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a one-bedroom, middle floor flat in a block of three dwellings.
On 5 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to make a formal complaint. Within her email, the resident advised that:
1. On 3 March, at approximately 11am, she was sitting at the table within her property and could hear one of her neighbours speaking loudly to someone about her. The resident says that the neighbour was telling the person that she was a “troublemaker”, and that she needed to be “thrown out” of her property. The person who the neighbour was speaking with was one of the landlord’s Area Managers, Mr K.
2. She began to film the exchange and the neighbour became aware of what she was doing. At that point, the neighbour threatened to come upstairs and that he would “do her in”. The resident said that more threats were made and Mr K could be heard advising the neighbour to make a complaint about her – and to encourage others to make a complaint to.
3. The neighbour then told the resident to “go back” to where she came from – at which point Mr K advised him that it was “not a nice thing to say”.
4. She subsequently called the police, and two officers attended. The police reference number was provided.
5. She was concerned about Mr K’s conduct. She believed that he had a duty to remain impartial, and that she was concerned that another resident was able to threaten her and racially abuse her in his presence.
6. She believed that Mr K had aggravated the situation and did nothing in the aftermath to obtain her version of events.
In closing, the resident said that she wished to complain about Mr K, and that the incident had left her feeling that her safety was “under threat”. The resident sent the landlord the video footage and explained that the investigation of a leak affecting a neighbouring property had begun the sequence of events leading to the incident outside her property.
The resident’s local councillor emailed the landlord the following day and asked if it could confirm that Mr K’s behaviour would be thoroughly investigated. Correspondence between the landlord and the resident continued as the landlord had not received a copy of the video footage. The resident confirmed that the file was too large to send; but that she would send it directly to the person investigating the complaint if a mobile number was provided.
The landlord issued an initial response to the complaint on 29 April. It said:
1. It had spoken with Mr K, and he had advised that he was trying to diffuse the situation.
2. From the video footage, Mr K could be heard saying that “everyone should be making a complaint”. It was the landlord’s belief that Mr K was informing the neighbour that if other residents had complaints, they would need to get in touch independently.
3. Mr K had spoken with the police too and it understood that “words of advice” were provided, but no further action was being taken. Mr K had also spoken with the neighbour about his conduct, and reminded him on his obligations under the terms of his tenancy agreement.
4. It was keen to resolve the issue in a positive manner, and hoped that the resident and her neighbour would attend mediation. It provided further information and enclosed a leaflet.
5. It thanked the resident for bringing the matter to its attention, and wished to apologise for any distress that she may have been caused.
The resident responded on 12 May to advise that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that there was no apology regarding the “lack of duty of care from Mr K”, the response did not explain why she was not contacted by anybody to obtain her side of the story; and the response did not explain what she could do if she was dissatisfied with the outcome of her complaint.
The landlord responded on the same day and confirmed that it had escalated the complaint to the next stage. It explained that a member of its case resolution team would be in touch to acknowledge the complaint and to provide further details.
The landlord confirmed on 14 May that the complaint had been escalated; and issued its response on 7 June. Within its letter, the landlord summarised the events leading up to its response and explained how it had investigated the complaint. It said that it had viewed the video footage that had been provided; and while some parts of the recording were clear, it was not able to “confidently verify the full details” and the comments by all three parties accurately. It said that as such, it had focused its investigation on the parts of Mr K’s visit that were clear, and occurred without questions. It said:
1. Mr K had attended to visit the resident’s neighbour in relation to the suspected leak. The male in the video footage lives in the area, and is one of its residents. The gentleman could be heard stating that the resident “has a problem” with everyone that has lived there for years.
2. Mr K is heard to response “everyone should be making a complaint”. As was advised its in previous response, this was not encouragement for others to complain about the resident; but rather, that others would have to make contact if they wished to complaint as it would not accept the information from a third party.
3. Following this, the male notices the resident recording him and swears at her. This is followed by him using more profanity and starting to mount the steps to the resident’s flat. At this point, Mr K can be heard saying “no, no, no, don’t do that, don’t do anything, don’t do anything.” The landlord said that it was clear that Mr K was aiming to stop the situation from escalating, and the man returns to the pavement area.
4. The video continues with Mr K speaking with the resident’s neighbour; however, the words are not audible. The man, who is “obviously unhappy with being filmed” starts to speak with the resident. He is heard to say, “I don’t know where you came from; you need to go back where you’re from”. Mr K had advised that this was a follow on comment, as the man had asked Mr K where the resident had moved from. Mr K had not regarded it as a “racial remark”, but did reprimand the man by saying “no, that’s not nice, that’s not nice to say”.
5. The man then informs Mr K that he was glad that Mr K had been present, as he could see that he was not being intimidating, but it was the resident. Mr K’s response is unclear due to traffic noise.
6. On leaving the neighbour’s flat, Mr K has a discussion with the man, and they leave in separate directions. The man can be seen swearing at the resident; however, there was no indication that Mr K heard the remark as he was no longer outside the flats.
7. Mr K had confirmed that he had spoken with the man in question and advised him that if he had any cause to complain then he should do so; however, his behaviour was not acceptable. Mr K had also spoken with the police; and while they had spoken with the man, no further action was to be taken.
The landlord said that it understood that it was an upsetting experience for the resident. However, it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint that Mr K either “enticed or aggravated the situation”. It considered that Mr K had remained calm and ensured that the behaviour did not escalate. As the police had not taken further action, it was satisfied that Mr K’s verbal warning about unacceptable behaviour was appropriate.
Although the complaint had not been upheld, it wished to offer the resident £75 compensation for delays in the initial complaint handling, and the failure to inform the resident of how she could escalate her complaint. The landlord confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint, and that the resident could refer the matter to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 17 June, the resident informed the landlord that she would be referring the complaint to this Service. In communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as she had not received an apology from Mr K for the “lack of duty of care”, and that the landlord had not explained why it had not contacted her to obtain her version of events.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s policy for Complaints about staff states that it will take an evidence-based approach to investigating reports of poor behaviour or performance of staff working directly for, or on behalf of Sanctuary.
It provides further that when investigating such complaints, the officer should remain objective and evidenced focussed. The aim of the initial discussion, should be to understand what had occurred from their perspective, and to advise them of the support available. The customer should also be asked to provide a clear overview of the allegation.
Once the customer’s comments and concerns have been noted, the investigating officer should then review the records to see whether the complaint can be substantiated. The officer will then assess the information and consider whether there is evidence that the member of staff has not delivered the service in a professional and fair way as would be expected.

Assessment and findings

When considering the resident’s complaint, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to investigate the incident itself. Rather, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response and determine whether it complied with its duties and obligations under its policies and/or procedures.
In response to the resident’s formal complaint about Mr K, the landlord took appropriate steps to view the video footage and to discuss the incident with him. This action was in line with its policy, as detailed above. While the landlord’s response was appropriate, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence of the discussion that the investigating officer had with Mr K prior to issuing the response of 29 April. It is noted that a discussion between the investigating officer and Mr K had been scheduled for 18 March; however, is not clear why evidence of what was discussed has not been provided. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure that any discussion or exchange was recorded on its system. That it was not, is indicative of poor recording keeping.
While the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of the discussion between the investigating officer and Mr K prior to 29 April, there is an email from Mr K dated 9 June within which he provides his account of what happened on the day, and his opinion on what had taken place. The landlord appropriately relayed this when it issued its final response to the complaint.
It is acknowledged that the resident was dissatisfied with the outcome of the landlord’s investigation, and that she disagrees with the landlord’s interpretation of Mr K’s involvement in the incident. However, the evidence demonstrates that overall the landlord’s followed its policy for complaints about staff conduct; and there is no evidence of a failing by the landlord with regards to how it responded to the resident’s concerns about Mr K.
However, the landlord’s ASB policy states that physical violence and/or threats of violence and hate-related incidents are examples of ASB. Given that Mr K witnessed the man behaving in a threatening manner, it would have been appropriate for him – or another member of landlord staff – to contact the resident and ask if she wished to report the incident as antisocial behaviour (ASB). In doing so, the landlord would have been obliged to obtain the resident’s comments about the incident, to investigate the incident and to take action as necessary against the man.
It is noted that the police had been called, and that Mr K did provide the man with a warning at the time; however, this should not have precluded the landlord from opening an ASB case, investigating the incident by speaking to other witnesses, and taking action as necessary. If the landlord had taken such steps, it would have reassured the resident that it takes instances of ASB seriously, and that her experience as a victim had been fully considered. The landlord’s decision not to take such action was a failing in the service that was provided. The landlord should now apologise to the resident, and take steps to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the incident that occurred outside the resident’s property.

Reasons

The evidence shows that overall, the landlord followed its policy when investigating the resident’s concerns about Mr K’s involvement in the incident outside her property. However, it would have been appropriate for Mr K – or another member of landlord staff – to open an ASB case, and discuss the matter with the resident in the immediate aftermath given that the man had displayed threatening behaviour.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident that an ASB case was not opened following the incident, and that she was not contacted by landlord staff in the immediate aftermath.
2. Pay the resident £150 for the inconvenience caused by the failing that has been identified.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Re-offer the £75 which was offered to the resident during the complaints procedure, if this has not been previously accepted.
2. Review its record keeping practices where complaints about staff are concerned.
3. Issue a reminder to its staff about its ASB policy, and what steps should be taken by staff if they witness ASB.