The Riverside Group Limited (202013015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013015

The Riverside Group Limited

16 August 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

The complaint concerns how the landlord handled:
1. The resident’s request to move property.
2. The resident’s concerns about its staff members conduct.
3. The formal complaint into these matters.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The resident has lived at her current property, which is a house, since September 2019. The resident moved to the property via a management transfer at the request of the resident and on the advice of the police.
The landlord operates two-stage complaint process. When a complaint is received, the landlord aims to provide an acknowledgement within 24 hours and a full response within ten working days. If the complainant is dissatisfied with the response, they can request an escalation of the complaint. The landlord will then conduct a review of the complaint and send a stage two response within ten working days. This will be the landlord’s final response to the complaint.

Summary of events

On 18 November 2020 the resident called the landlord. The landlord’s notes of the call state that the resident informed it that she felt at risk and requested she was moved by the landlord. The resident described an incident when an unknown individual attended the property to see her son, who was currently missing, and she called the police. The landlord contacted the police officer who attended, who informed the landlord that they did not believe there was any imminent risk to the resident.
A further telephone conversation between the landlord and resident occurred on 19 November 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call stated that it informed the resident of its conversation with the police officer and that the officer would be visiting her to provide her with a personal alarm and offering advice on keeping herself safe.
The landlord called the resident on the morning of 18 December 2020. The landlord’s notes of the call state that:
1. The resident was unhappy that she had not received an update on her potential move. The landlord informed her that it had not received any evidence that would warrant a move via a management transfer.
2. The resident explained that she wished to move out of the area as she had experienced issues with her neighbours.
3. The resident informed it that her son had moved out of the property and had been provided alternative accommodation by the local authority.
4. The resident then expressed her dissatisfaction with how her request had been handled by the landlord staff members she had spoken with. She said she felt her case had been handled differently by the staff members due to her race.
The landlord called the local authority, who confirmed that the resident’s son had been placed in alternative housing due to a breakdown in his relationship with his mother. The landlord then called the resident back to inform her that it had opened a formal complaint regarding the conduct of its staff members and that it would consider her request for a move via management transfer.
On 19 January 2021, the landlord left a voicemail message for the resident offering a ground floor flat in an area which was closer to her mother.
The resident called the landlord on 20 January 2020 to decline the property. The landlord’s notes of the call state that it was informed by the resident that living close to her mother was no longer a requirement and that she did not wish to live in a flat. The landlord and resident also talked about whether a one- or two-bedroom property would be preferable.
On 1 February 2021, the resident called this Service and explained her dissatisfaction with how the landlord had handled her complaint and the poor service she had experienced when requesting a property transfer. This Service passed on the resident’s concerns to the landlord, who replied on 1 February 2021 and stated that it had escalated the complaint to stage two of its internal process.
The landlord called the resident on 2 February 2021 to provide an update on her property move. It explained that it currently had no empty properties to offer her. The resident also informed the landlord that she would consider a one-bedroom property.
On 4 February 2021, the landlord called the resident and offered a two-bedroom property. This was declined by the resident as it was not in one of her preferred areas.
The landlord called the resident on 17 February 2021 to discuss the complaint. The landlord’s notes of the call state that:
1. They discussed the circumstances surrounding the transfer to her current property and that the resident felt that this was a mistake and that she was ‘tricked’ into moving.
2. The landlord staff members had been ‘cold’ towards her during their discussions about a further move and that she felt that requesting additional evidence for a move and not accepting that she felt she didn’t fit into the area due to the colour of her skin was racist. The resident also highlighted the tone used by the staff members and that she felt insulted when it was suggested that she needed counselling.
3. The properties offered by landlord had so far not been in the resident’s preferred areas and that she would consider a one- or two-bedroom property. The landlord and resident also discussed her rent arrears and that these prevented her moving via a mutual exchange.
4. The landlord informed the resident that it would interview the staff members involved and then provide a stage two complaint response by 8 March 2021.
On 23 February 2021 the landlord called the resident and offered two further properties, which were declined. The call notes do not describe the type of properties or the reasons why they were refused by the resident. The call notes state that the resident informed the landlord that she would now only consider a two-bedroom property.
The landlord sent the stage two complaint response to the resident on 3 March 2021. It informed the resident that:
1. It takes complaints relating to racism seriously and apologised for the delay in providing the response as the investigation required interviews with the staff members who had corresponded with the resident before it could be concluded.
2. When the resident was asked to supply further evidence to support her management transfer, this was done in order to assess her need to be rehoused and as part of its transfer policy. Its investigation had not found any evidence that her management transfer request had been handled any differently to other applications and it had found no evidence of racism.
3. Although no evidence was found, the landlord would undertake a review of the guidance given to staff members on management transfers and how factors related to race and other protected characteristics are treated. It also apologised to the resident for how her interactions with its staff members had made her feel.
4. It confirmed that it will continue to work with the resident to identify a suitable property for her to move to.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled the resident’s request to move property

The landlord’s management lets policy defines a management transfer as a situation where the landlord will offer a property without going through the normal lettings route.
The policy then describes the circumstances in which the landlord will consider a management transfer. These include referrals from statutory or voluntary agencies (such as the police or social services), antisocial behaviour issues, and where a tenancy or property is vulnerable.
Standard industry practice is for a resident to be offered one property as a management transfer and another property would not usually be offered if this is rejected. However, the landlord’s policy does not give a limit to how many properties can be offered to a resident as part of the management transfer process. During the period of the complaint, the landlord offered several different properties to the resident.
Management transfers are not considered as part of a landlord’s normal transfer and/or allocations procedure. As management transfers are deemed to be initiated by the landlord, they are not covered by allocations rules in the Housing Act 1996.
There is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the resident’s transfer request as the landlord is under no obligation to agree to a management transfer. The decision to agree to a transfer and the type and location of property that is subsequently offered is made solely at the landlord’s discretion. This is independent from any banding and/or bidding scheme operated by the landlord itself, or on behalf of a local authority. The Ombudsman can look at whether the landlord has used its discretion fairly taking into account the individual circumstances in each case. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the landlord has treated the resident unfairly and it has acted reasonably by offering her several properties which met her stated criteria. The Ombudsman is not questioning the resident’s reasons for declining these properties. However, the landlord can only offer properties based on the limited stock of empty properties which it owns and therefore it can sometimes take a long time for a suitable property to become available.

How the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about its staff members conduct

It is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to establish whether the landlord’s staff members were racist in their correspondence with the resident because matters of discrimination, including racism are legal issues which are better suited to court to decide. However, the Ombudsman has assessed whether the landlord’s correspondence with the resident was appropriate, fair and reasonable including assessing its response to her concerns about the conduct of its staff.
Section 5 of the landlord’s code of conduct concerns respect and, in part, states that:
1. “Colleagues are responsible for ensuring that their own behaviour, whether intentional or unintentional does not constitute as discrimination, bullying, harassment or victimisation. Colleagues should not display material or use language that others may find offensive, or be involved in any activity that may bring [the landlord] into disrepute. Colleagues should always consider their own behaviour and the impact that this can have on others, working cooperatively, considering different perspectives and giving constructive and appropriate feedback as part of normal day to day work.”
When informed by the resident that she believed that her property transfer request was handled in a raciest manner, the landlord was expected to investigate the matter and establish whether its staff members had complied with its code of conduct. It opened a complaint on the same day that the matter was reported, reviewed the correspondence and interviewed the staff members involved.
The landlord has provided as part of its evidence to the Ombudsman, the investigation report following the conclusion of its investigation. This described the interviews held with the staff members, the correspondence between them and the resident, and the relevant landlord polices that were followed during this process.
This report concluded that the resident was not treated any differently than anyone else requesting a management transfer and that the landlord’s management lets policy was properly followed. The report made a recommendation that the review its guidance on management transfers, which the landlord complied with. The landlord then informed the resident on the conclusions of its investigation.
Therefore, there is no evidence of service failure in how the landlord handled the reports of racism by its staff members. It raised a formal complaint within 24 hours, undertook a full investigation and informed the resident the result of the investigation as part of its stage two complaint response. The landlord also accepted the recommendation to review its guidance on management transfers in order to improve its service in the future.

The landlord’s complaint-handling

The landlord did not follow its complaint policy during the case. It opened a formal complaint on the same day the resident raised issues of her transfer process and the conduct of its staff members. However, it did not provide a stage one complaint response within ten working days. Nor is there any evidence that it informed the resident of a delay in providing the response.
This resulted in the resident calling this Service in order to progress the complaint. The landlord then escalated the complaint through its internal process, discussed the elements of the complaint with the resident, and provided a full response within a revised timescale.
The landlord’s complaint procedure document recommends that “if a course of action cannot be agreed during frontline resolution and the complaint cannot be resolved, close the complaint at Stage One and move it to Stage Two.”
Aside from not meeting its timescales, it does not appear that the landlord experienced any issues in progressing the complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to suggest that the resident was contacted and informed of any issues.
The time taken to complete its investigations into staff conduct took longer that the landlord’s recommended complaint response times. However, the landlord contacted the resident and agreed a new timescale to provide the stage two response. The landlord could have contacted the resident in the same way to agree an extension to the timescale for the stage one complaint response.
A landlord’s complaint response at stage two of its internal process would be expected to review how it responded to the complaint at the first stage and address any outstanding issues and/or desired outcome described by a complainant when they requested the escalation. This did not happen in this case as the complaint only went through one stage before it was closed by the landlord. Landlords are also expected to have a two-stage complaint process that is in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which is available on our website.
The landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the case before the involvement of this Service by undertaking a review of the case at senior level where the residents outstanding issues and desired outcome to the complaint are addressed.
In order to fully resolve this aspect of the complaint, a compensation payment is warranted. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (which is available on our website) suggests a payment of £250 to £750 in cases of considerable service failure or maladministration where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. As an example of what should be considered for this level of redress, the guidance suggests “significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant”.

It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £250 compensation for the delays at stage one of its complaints process, and not undertaking a proper review of the complaint at stage two.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled:
1. The resident’s request to move property.
2. The resident’s concerns about its staff members conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The offer of a property via a management transfer is a discretionary process. Therefore, the landlord was not obliged to offer a property to the resident, although it was reasonable for it to do so in this case in response to her concerns about her neighbours. The landlord offered the resident several properties, which she declined as they did not meet her requirements. The landlord could only offer properties from a limited range available and there is no evidence that it could have offered the resident any other properties at the time of the complaint.

The landlord undertook an appropriate investigation into the resident’s concerns about its staff’s conduct and explained the results of the investigation to the resident as part of its complaint response.
The landlord did not follow its complaints process at stage one and the stage two complaint response did not represent a comprehensive review of how the complaint was handled at stage one of the landlord’s process.

Order

For the service failure and reasons set out above, the landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £250 compensation. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling policy to ensure that complainants are responded to at both stages of the complaints process, in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.