Thurrock Council (202000809)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000809

Thurrock Council

9 March 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of the conduct of a member of staff.
   2. Request to keep a pet.
   3. Report of outstanding repairs.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and started an introductory tenancy mid‑2019.The property is a second-floor bedsit. The landlord has mental health vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.  
3. The tenancy agreement says that residents must obtain written permission from the landlord to keep a pet in the property and this is granted at its discretion. It also states that permission for a dog would not be granted unless the property has sole use, and direct access to, a garden.
4. The landlord’s complaints webpage provides for a three-stage complaint procedure, with complaints about staff automatically escalated to stage two of the procedure. At stage two and the final stage, the landlord is to provide the result of its investigation within 15 working days. At the second and final stages, the landlord may decide not to investigate the complaint at that stage and inform the resident why.  

Summary of events

5. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 March 2020 to complain about the conduct of a member of its staff (the staff member) whose behaviour was designed to “belittle”, “intimidate” and “bully” her. She said that this had been “going on for about seven years” and were examples of “racial hatred toward her”. The resident felt that the member of staff had spoken to her “as though she [was] five years old”, booked appointments with her which were inconvenient, and this staff member, through making compliments about her, would make her feel “belittled and very sad”.
6. The resident contended that the landlord withheld information from her prior to her moving into the property, such as damage to the letterbox. She also believed that she would not be offered a secure tenancy because of her ethnicity. The resident also felt that she had been refused permission for a pet in the property for the same reason. She said that the property was in an “unacceptable” condition due to rusty a heater, a loose front door and the windows being dated. The resident said she did not feel safe in the property and being able to keep a dog would make her feel more secure; she also questioned why she had not been given permission for a pet when other neighbours in similar-sized properties had been granted permission.
7. The landlord issued a stage two complaint response on 27 March 2020 in which it said its investigation of the contact between the resident and the staff member had found that it was appropriate and in line with its processes. It noted that appointments had been made at the resident’s request. The landlord asked for more details of the conversation which she had complained about advising that, without any tangible evidence, it could not allocate another staff member for her to deal with.
8. The landlord explained that, providing the resident’s quarterly reviews were successful and she did not accrue rent arrears, she would be offered a secure tenancy at the end of the 12-month introductory period. It confirmed that her first two quarterly reviews had been successful.
9. The landlord said that the resident would not be given permission for a dog due to the type of property she lived in. It also confirmed that permission for a cat had been denied due to the “excess amount” of belongings in the property. The landlord also noted that the resident was “struggling with [her] own well-being at the moment”. The landlord advised that it would reconsider its decision once these factors improved. It declined to comment on other residents with pets due to data protection regulation.
10. The landlord said that, after the property handover on 3 July 2019, the resident had reported that there was a defective front door lock and that she did not have keys to her letter box. It highlighted that none of the repairs mentioned in her complaint had been raised as repairs and asked her to report these to its repairs line. The landlord concluded its complaint response by confirming that it had found no evidence of any service failures.
11. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 April 2020 requesting that it escalate her complaint to the final stage of the complaints procedure. She was unhappy with its finding that the staff member had not behaved inappropriately and gave examples of such behaviour. The resident said that she was not comfortable being alone with the staff member and did not trust what they might do unless there was a third–party present. The resident acknowledged that it was not possible to keep a dog and explained that her point was that she wanted the rule to be enforced fairly to all residents. She said she felt that she was not treated fairly by the landlord. The resident asserted that she had made several repair reports to the landlord about the property including radiators, windows and the letterbox.
12. The landlord responded to the resident on 1 May 2020 declining to investigate her complaint at the final stage of its procedure, asserting that the matters she raised had been addressed fully in its stage two complaint response. It reiterated that it could investigate the behaviour of its staff if she were to provide any evidence to support her claims. The landlord advised that it could re-consider permission for the resident to keep a pet in July 2020 when she would be eligible for a secure tenancy, providing the criteria for this had been met.
13. The landlord stated that its records showed that it had completed all repairs which had been reported to it, and again urged her to report any further repairs to its repairs telephone line. It confirmed that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaints procedure.
14. The landlord confirmed to this Service on 6 January 2021 that it had interviewed the staff member on 6 March 2020, when they denied being rude or unhelpful. The landlord said it had advised the staff member not to make comments on resident’s belongings, however well intentioned. The staff member agreed to be more professional and apologise to the resident.
15. The landlord also provided evidence to show it had completed a repair to the front door lock of the resident’s property on 20 August 2019 and changed the lock to her letterbox.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct

16. When a landlord receives a complaint about staff conduct, it would be expected of it to carry out an investigation based on the evidence available to it. It is noted that it relayed in its stage two complaint response on 27 March 2020 that it had examined records of contacts between the resident and the staff member and found no evidence of inappropriate conduct. As per the landlord’s account, above at point 17, it interviewed and provided feedback to the staff member and they agreed to apologise to the resident. On the basis of the evidence provided, this was an appropriate and proportionate response.
17. The landlord requested in its stage two complaint response for the resident to provide further evidence to enable it to investigate further. No additional evidence was provided by her in her subsequent final stage complaint request on 2 April 2020. For the landlord to take any further action or undertake further investigation, it must be provided with evidence. In the absence of evidence, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to conclude, in its contact on 1 May 2020, that no further action was possible at that time. There is no evidence of any failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of staff conduct.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to keep a pet

18. The tenancy agreement, above at point 3, confirms that permission from the landlord must be obtained if a resident wishes to keep a pet, and explains that sole use and direct access to a garden is a prerequisite of obtaining permission to keep a dog. The landlord has informed this Service that the property is a second-floor bedsit. It is likely that the property does not meet the criteria for keeping a dog and therefore appropriate for the landlord the landlord to refuse permission to do so. Its decision to refuse permission to keep a cat was also reasonable based on its knowledge at the time. It was appropriate for the landlord to decline to discuss the circumstances of other residents, for data protection concerns.
19. The landlord advised, on 1 May 2020, that it would consider whether the resident could keep a pet once she became a secure tenant. In this way, the landlord was being reasonable in using its discretion. There is no evidence of any failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s enquiry about keeping a pet.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of outstanding repairs

20. It is evident that repairs to the resident’s letterbox and front door were completed by the landlord on 20 August 2019. However, there is a disparity between the landlord and resident’s account of reported repairs. The landlord can only act on repair reports that were made to it and there is no evidence that the resident made such reports.
21. It is noted that the landlord suggested that the resident report any repairs to its repairs telephone line in both its stage two and final complaint responses, but there is no evidence that she did this. While there is no evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part, given the resident’s vulnerabilities, it could have been more proactive in identifying any outstanding repairs. A recommendation concerning this is made below.

Determination (decision)

22. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s:
    1. Reports of staff conduct.
    2. Request to keep a pet.
    3. Report of outstanding repairs.

Reasons

23. The landlord took reasonable and proportionate actions to investigate and address the concerns raised by the resident about staff conduct, based on the available evidence.
24. The landlord responded reasonably, and in accordance with its tenancy agreement, to the resident’s request to keep a pet.
25. The landlord responded reasonably to repair requests which it received reports of, and there is no evidence that it received reports of further repairs.

Recommendations

26. It is recommended that the landlord make contact with the resident within 14 days to find out if there are any outstanding repair issues.