The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

South Tyneside Council (202304960)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304960

South Tyneside Council

5 August 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 concerns about:
    1. The conduct of a staff member handling her reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. The conduct of a staff member handling her complaint.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and lives in a 1 bedroom bungalow, her tenancy started in May 2015. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to multiple health concerns that affect her mobility, and breathing. This investigation has considered the landlord’s response to concerns about the conduct of 2 members of its staff. The complaints were dealt with simultaneously, but as separate complaints under different references. For clarity, this report refers to the complaint about an officer handling the ASB case as “officer A”, and the complaint about the officer dealing with a complaint investigation as “officer B”.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 September 2022 about an open ASB case. The letter set out what the landlord considered to be ASB, and what it would not investigate as ASB. The resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint on 5 October 2022, and said that the officer overseeing her ASB case (officer A) had sought to “bully and harass” her, and was acting in a “malicious” manner. The resident contact the landlord later the same day to make a complaint about an officer investigating a complaint (officer B), and said they were “refusing to communicate” about complaints. She requested a “taped” face to face meeting, and said the officer was being “unreasonable” and displaying “inappropriate behaviour”.
  3. The landlord sent the stage 1 complaint response, about the conduct of officer A, on 17 April 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, and offered £75 in compensation. It said it had listened to a recording of the resident’s interactions with officer A, and found that they were “formal and professional” in their manner. It also explained it could “understand why [the resident] felt this may have come across as lacking in empathy”. It did not uphold that aspect of the resident’s complaint, but said it had discussed the matter with officer A, and their manager, about being “more empathetic” in future. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2, as it had made “no mention” of the letter she had complained about.
  4. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response, about the conduct of officer B, on 25 April 2023. It explained it had spoken to officer B, and reviewed officer B’s email correspondence with her. It found that the responses from officer B were “not obstructive or dismissive”. It acknowledged that part of the resident’s original complaint had not been addressed in officer B’s response, but this was then picked up in a separate complaint it was investigating. It offered £75 in compensation for its complaint handling. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response, and asked the complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 29 April 2023. She said she was unhappy with the delay in responding to the complaint, and said it had “misrepresented” the conduct of officer B.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 May 2023 to withdraw her stage 2 complaints. She said that she was unhappy with who the landlord had allocated to investigate the complaints, and said she has “no trust” in the process. The landlord contacted the resident on 17 May 2023 and confirmed it had closed the stage 2 complaint, as she had requested.
  6. Around May 2023 (the exact date is unclear) the landlord asked an independent company to review its handling of the resident’s ASB case, and her complaints about the conduct of its staff. The landlord wrote to the resident with the company’s findings, on 21 June 2023, and said the review had found no evidence of bullying or harassment. The landlord offered to take part in mediation with the resident.
  7. The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 response, to the complaint about officer A, on 12 July 2023. It said it had decided to reopen the complaint as the resident had contacted this Service to express her dissatisfaction with its handling of the complaint. It apologised it had not addressed the letter referenced in her original complaint. It said its stage 1 response had addressed all the issues raised in the face to face meeting with the resident. It set out that it could not agree to the resident’s request for officer A to have no involvement in her tenancy, due to it being part of their role to oversee ASB cases. It did not uphold the complaint, and said it had found no “evidence of bullying or harassment” against the resident.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response, about the conduct of officer B, on 3 August 2023. It gave a breakdown of the evidence it had considered as part of the complaint. It restated its apology for the “oversight” that an aspect of the resident’s previous complaint had not been responded to. It explained that if had investigated and found this was due to “human error” and it was not officer B’s intention to not investigate her concerns. It restated its offer of £75 in compensation it offered at stage 1 for its complaint handling.
  9. The resident contacted this Service on 9 November 2023, and asked us to investigate her complaints. She said she was unhappy with the “unreasonable and inappropriate conduct” of the landlord’s staff. She said she felt the delays in the complaint handling were down to “deliberate and malicious” behaviour on the part of the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The serious nature of the resident’s allegations about the conduct of the landlord’s staff is acknowledged. However, when investigating a complaint about a member landlord, we will consider the response of the landlord as a whole,. We will only comment on the actions of individuals as 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. In short, we can look at staff conduct in some cases and we may award compensation or order an apology or staff training due to staff misconduct. What we cannot do is order the landlord to take disciplinary action against individual staff members.
  2. The Ombudsman will not form a view on whether the staff member’s actions themselves amounted to misconduct, or not. 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 the evidence it has available.
  3. The resident’s requests for officer A, and officer B, not to be involved in the management of her tenancy in any way are noted. However, the outcome the resident is seeking is not within the remit of this Service to order. We do not have the authority to instruct the landlord to take such action. As such, we have instead considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of misconduct of its staff, and if its response was reasonable in the circumstances of the cases.

The conduct of a staff member handling the resident’s reports of ASB

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the ASB case are not within the scope of this investigation. This investigation has focused on the resident’s concerns about the conduct of officer A, and the allegations of bullying harassment by officer A. The resident’s concerns about its approach to the ASB case were handled in a separate complaint that is awaiting investigation with this Service (reference: 202304183). The complaint was duly made on 29 January 2024. A determination will be made on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB as a separate determination.
  2. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of 17 April 2023, showed it had given full consideration to the resident’s concerns. It outlined that it had interviewed officer A, and listened to a recording the resident provided. This is evidence it took her concerns seriously and considered the evidence in the case. This was reasonable in the circumstances and evidence the landlord acted with thoroughness, and transparency.
  3. The stage 1 response accepted that it understood why the resident felt its officer had acted with a lack of “empathy”. While appropriate to apologise, and set out the steps it had taken to prevent this happening again, it failed to offer any redress for the admitted failing. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident was evidently distressed at the perceived “harassment” she experienced from officer A. While it is noted the landlord did not find this to be the case, an offer of redress for its admitted failing would have gone some way to putting right the fact its officer was “lacking in empathy”. This would have helped build trust with the resident.
  4. Our spotlight report on attituded, respect, and rights cited the tone of communication with residents was a major factor that impacted on the service the resident received. The report explained that when the tone of the landlord’s response “dismiss[ed] a resident’s lived experiences” resulted in the resident feeling they had received unfavourable treatment. The evidence indicates, and the landlord’s own assessment of the evidence, such a situation arose in this case. While we welcome the learning shown in order to show a greater level of empathy in future interactions, that it did not offer appropriate redress for this was unreasonable.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was silent on the letter of September 2022, which was the subject of the resident’s initial complaint. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident specifically complained that the content of the letter showed officer A had “bull[ied] and “harass[ed]” her. That it failed to address those specific concerns was inappropriate. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact it did not respond to that specific aspect of her complaint.
  6. As a result of the multiple complaints about the conduct of its staff, the landlord arranged for an independent company to assess its handling of various matters. That it asked the company to conduct an independent investigation is evidence it sought to act impartially, and with transparency. The landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and asked for external input to form an impartial view of its actions. This was reasonable in the circumstances. That it communicated the outcome of the investigation to the resident also showed transparency. This Service welcomes the fact it offered mediation with the resident, in an attempt to build trust. This was a supportive and appropriate approach.
  7. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response set out its findings of the investigation into the conduct of officer A, as well as the findings of the independent investigation. It also addressed the letter of September 2022, and apologised it had not done so before. This went some way to putting right its earlier failing in this regard. The detail in its response is evidence it took the resident’s concerns seriously and thoroughly investigated. However, that it did not offer redress for its admitted failing at stage 1 (not addressing the letter) was a shortcoming in its response.
  8. That it sought to manage the resident’s expectations about officer A’s ongoing involvement with her tenancy was also appropriate. This was evidently disappointing for the resident. However, the landlord explained why officer A may need to contact her in future, and set out its position clearly. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  9. The evidence shows the landlord took the resident’s concerns about the conduct of officer A seriously. It thoroughly investigated the evidence it had, and set out its position with clarity. It is, however, noted that the resident disagreed with its findings. The landlord accepted that, despite finding no evidence of misconduct, there was a lack of empathy in its interaction with the resident. It did show learning about the issue, but that it did not offer redress for its admitted failing was inappropriate. The landlord also accepted it had not responded to all aspects of the resident’s complaint. That it did not offer redress for the admitted failing was a further shortcoming. As such, we have determined there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a staff member handling the resident’s reports of ASB.

The conduct of a staff member handling the resident’s complaint.

  1. The landlord used it stage 1 complaint response to clearly set out the evidence it had considered, and that it had interviewed officer B. It is noted that the resident disagreed with its findings. However, the landlord set out its findings with clarity, showed it had given due consideration to the evidence it had available. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. As set out above, that the landlord sought to conduct an independent review of the allegations the resident had made, through an independent company, was appropriate in the circumstances. This is evidence it sought to act impartially, and with transparency.
  3. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave further detail about its investigation and the evidence it had considered. It specifically addressed the resident’s concerns that it had deliberately obstructed the complaints process, which, in the resident’s view, amounted to misconduct. It explained it had identified a complaint handling failure,, which did not amount to misconduct, but was “human error”. While we acknowledge the resident disagreed with its findings, the evidence shows it gave her concerns the appropriate consideration and it investigated thoroughly. Its approach was reasonable in the circumstances, and we have determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Complaint handling.

  1. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. When the resident made her complaints about officer A and B on 5 October 2022. There is no evidence to indicate that the landlord opened a complaint investigation for either complaint at that time. This was a failing in its complaint handling that caused an inconvenience. The evidence shows that the landlord did open complaint investigations into both complaints in March 2023. This was an unreasonable delay and the resident was cost time and trouble by needing to repeatedly raise the complaints.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord met with the resident, in person, to discuss the complaints (on 3 and 17 April 2023). This was appropriate in the circumstances and evidence the landlord considered the circumstances of the resident. That it sought to adhere to her requests for face to face meetings about complaints was appropriate in the circumstances.
  4. The stage 1 response, to the complaint about officer A, was sent 6 months after it was made. This was a failing in its complaint handling. While we welcome the £75 it offered to try and put right the complaint handling delay, it did not show the appropriate amount of learning about the complaint handling delay, or what it would do to prevent similar delays happening in the future. This was a shortcoming in its response, and the landlord missed an opportunity to build trust with the resident.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, about the conduct of officer B, was also sent 6 months after it was made. Unlike the other stage 1 response it offered no apology or acknowledgement that there was a delay. In fact, it set out the complaint was made in March 2023, this was in accurate and a failing in its complaint handling.
  6. It is noted the stage 1 complaint response, about officer B, acknowledged a failing in is complaint handling, by not investigating part of the original complaint (the letter from September 2022). This Service welcomes the fact the landlord offered redress to try and put right its admitted failing, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
  7. Throughout the period this investigation has considered, the resident had multiple complaints open with the landlord. Having a large volume of complaint communications from the resident may have contributed to the difficulties in the landlord’s complaint handing. That the landlord sent the resident a letter in June 2023, setting out how it handled complaints, and that it had sought advice from this Service about its approach, was appropriate. This is evidence it sought to manage the resident’s expectations about how it would approach her complaint. This was appropriate.
  8. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint responses were sent 7 and 8 months respectively, after they were made. The evidence shows that the entirety of the delay was not the fault of the landlord, as the resident had asked it to close the complaints. That it reopened both investigations, when it became apparent the resident remained unhappy, was reasonable in the circumstances. Once it reopened the stage 2 complaints, the responses were sent within a reasonable timeframe.
  9. Both stage 1 complaint responses were sent well outside of the timeframes set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. It appropriately apologised and offered redress for one of the complaints, but failed to do so in the other complaint. That it offered redress for not addressing an aspect of the resident’s complaint was appropriate. Considering the above failings, we have determined there was service failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a staff member handling her reports of ASB.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of a staff member handling her complaint.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £275 in compensation, made up of:
      1. £75 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns around the conduct of a staff member handling her reports of ASB.
      2. The £150 it offered for its complaint handling (if it has not already done so).
      3. A further £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
    3. Remind its staff responsible for investigating complaints the importance of:
      1. Conducting a thorough investigation into all aspects of the complaint.
      2. Consider complaint handling delays in its investigation, and where appropriate, offering redress for delays.