Southwark Council (202109562)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109562

Southwark Council

26 October 2021

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:
   1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the landlord’s staff.
   2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, the alleged theft reported by the resident would appear to be an issue for the police to investigate, so falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which says that this Service will not investigate complaints which ‘concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure’.
4. The resident is seeking compensation for parcels stolen from her. As above, the issue of whether a theft took place is for the police to decide. This investigation therefore covers only whether the landlord attempted to investigate the resident’s claims, and the action it took on that basis.

 

Background and summary of events

5. The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom third (top) floor flat in a block owned by the landlord, a local authority. The property has a communal internal stairwell.

The lease

6. The 125-year lease signed on 12 January 2015 sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the resident and the landlord. It states at section 4 (5) that the landlord covenants to provide ‘services’, the definition of which includes security services.

Complaints Policy

7. The landlord’s complaints policy states a full response will be issued in 15 working days at the first stage, and 25 working days at the second stage of the complaint process. Page 2 of the policy explains that after the review (second) stage, residents will be referred to the applicable Ombudsman Service.
8. Page 8 of the policy gives tariffs of compensation payable depending on the impact and nature of the injustice. Section 2.b, on page 9 of the policy, includes the payment of compensation for ‘time and trouble’. This includes the length of time the landlord has taken to respond to a complaint, and the degree of inadequacy of the landlord’s response. Compensation is payable in a range from £50 to £250.

Summary of events

9. The landlord logged a complaint following a call from the resident on 9 December 2020.  She stated that the cleaner at their block of flats had been stealing her deliveries from outside her ‘street door’.  This had happened in April when the resident had also reported it. Bags for charity had also been taken, as well as cosmetics and the previous day’s parcels, from outside her door.
10. An email from the resident stated that this was not the first time this cleaner had stolen her parcels and that he had targeted her; she was very stressed and vulnerable. She had called the police and had a crime reference. The resident asked the landlord to call her urgently.
11. There is no record that the resident was called, but the landlord has provided an internal email from the Area Manager which asked a colleague to contact the resident about one of his cleaners.
12. An acknowledgment of a stage one complaint was issued on 10 December 2020. The landlord said that the complaint was about a cleaner stealing items from outside the resident’s street door, and that this was not the first time this had happened.  It advised that the complaint would be responded to by 4 January 2021.
13. An internal email, on 11 December 2020, shows a draft response from the landlord. It confirmed the terms of the complaint were that a cleaning operative was stealing deliveries from the resident’s front door.
14. It explained that the estate supervisor had visited the location to inspect the area and had interviewed the operative and retained a record of the interview for audit purposes. As a precaution the landlord had moved the cleaner from the estate. The landlord said it had followed its internal policies and procedures and understood the matter had been escalated to the police. The resident was invited to discuss the matter further and stage two escalation rights were given.
15. There is no record that this response was sent or evidence of further communication with the resident until 19 February 2021, when the matter was chased by the resident.  She stated she had not had an update and wished to escalate the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s internal complaint process.
16. There is no record of further communication before a stage two complaint response was sent on 22 July 2021. The landlord’s investigation found: 
    1. As part of the stage one process, the estate supervisor had attended the location and interviewed the cleaner, who was removed from the estate as a precaution.
    2. A full investigation was carried out by the HR department which found no evidence of the resident’s allegations.
    3. The landlord had followed internal policies and procedures.
    4. Given this, the landlord believed it had adequately addressed the matter and had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
    5. The resident was referred to the Local Government Ombudsman (now the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman) if they remained dissatisfied.
17. The resident approached this Service on 23 July 2021. She stated that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on the following grounds:             

1. Communication: there had been no response to her calls, and she was passed to different people.
2. Handling of the internal complaints process, which had taken seven months.
3. The lack of empathy shown by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the landlord’s staff 

18. In respect of the investigation into the theft itself, the landlord has said it followed its procedure by interviewing staff the day after the complaint, and it took prompt action to remove the cleaner from the estate.
19. The Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about individual members of staff. Any employment action is a separate matter for the landlord to consider, taking into consideration its internal policies. As detailed above, the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with an explanation about the steps that it took, and why it did not consider that any further action was warranted.
20. The Ombudsman would however expect the landlord to investigate matters quickly and to take steps to ease the resident’s distress following such a report. By acting promptly, attending the site and removing the cleaner from the block, the landlord did fulfil this expectation. However, there is no evidence to show that the resident was made aware of this before the stage two response sent in July 2021, more than seven months after the theft was reported. It is not unreasonable for the resident to have believed, through this extended period, that the matter was not taken seriously by the landlord. 
21. There is no log of calls or other contact by the resident to the landlord beyond the 9 December 2020 call. There is no evidence that the previous reports of theft were made, acknowledged, or responded to. The resident stated that an earlier report was made in April 2020, that calls went unreturned, and she could not speak to the same person twice. It is not unreasonable to conclude that the previous issues were raised by the resident but not recorded or responded to by the landlord. This would indicate poor and incomplete record keeping on behalf of the landlord. 
22. Once the resident made her complaint in December 2020, there is no indication that the landlord asked for further details about the previous occasions when items went missing. This would have supported that a thorough investigation into the theft took place.
23. A report such as this, about an alleged theft by landlord staff, might be expected to be handled outside of the complaints procedure initially. However, in this case, the resident complained that they had previously reported the matter, so the report of the theft and the complaint procedure were merged, but neither approach were handled correctly. 
24. Overall, the initial action known to be taken by the landlord appears appropriate. But there is a lack of evidence to show it asked about the previous reports, or that it fed back to the resident after it interviewed the staff member and they were removed from the location. Better communication at this point may have reassured the resident and prevented the formal complaint escalating.
25. In view of this failing in the landlord’s investigation of the resident’s concerns, compensation should have been offered the resident. This is in accordance with the landlord’s policy with respect to events where there has been a degree of inadequacy in its response. This would have reflected the fact that, while the outcome of its investigation does not appear unreasonable, the landlord could have gone further and communicated better.

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

26. The landlord provided an internal email with the draft text for a stage one response, but not the actual letter or email sent to the resident. The resident stated that she had no response to her initial complaint in December 2020. This indicates that the draft was not sent out, although the landlord has been silent on this point in its stage two response and its submission to this Service.
27. When the stage two response was sent to the resident on 22 July 2021, there was no explanation or apology for the inordinate delay since the complaint was escalated on 19 February 2021. 
28. The landlord’s own complaints policy states that complaints should be responded to in 15 working days at stage one. The resident’s complaint does not appear to have been responded to at all. The stage two complaint should have been responded to within 25 working days but took five months. The landlord failed to meet its own standards for the complaint responses.
29. Accordingly, the landlord did not allow the resident to proceed through its internal complaints procedure as it should. It should have acknowledged these failings within its complaint responses and made an offer of redress to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its sub-standard complaints handling.
30. The stage two response referred the resident to the wrong Ombudsman Service, as it should have said that the resident could take her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, not the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.  In this instance, the resident did not delay in contacting this Service, but other residents may be denied the opportunity to escalate their concerns.
31. The Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles in the way it considers disputes. One of the principles is ‘be fair’; to treat people fairly and follow fair process. In this case, there was a delay in responding to the December 2020 complaint, and the February 2021 complaint which denied the resident a fair process.
32. In respect of the lack of a stage one complaint and the delay in the stage two complaint response, a further offer of compensation to the resident is warranted. This is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation guidance where there has been inconvenience caused to the complainant due to delays in it providing a response.

Determination (decision)

33. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was Service failure in respect of:

1. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the landlord’s staff.
2. the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Reasons

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the landlord’s staff 

34. The landlord failed to evidence that a thorough investigation took place and failed to adequately communicate with the resident.

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

35. There was a delay in the complaint responses which was not acknowledged by the landlord and it failed to address gaps in its communication. 

Orders

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the landlord’s staff 

36. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident the £50 as per the landlord’s compensation guidance for an inadequacy in its response.   

the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

37. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should pay the resident £100 as per the landlord’s compensation guidance for the delay in a response.   
38. The total compensation is therefore £150.

Recommendations

39. It is recommended that the landlord remind all relevant staff of the correct procedure for those complaints which should be escalated to the Housing Ombudsman Service, as opposed to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.