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

Tower Hamlets Homes (202223881)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223881

Tower Hamlets Homes

24 August 2023


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 of poor customer service from its staff.
    2. The landlord’s handling of a repair to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

The landlord’s handling of a repair to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans.

  1. The resident complained about delays to his repairs to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans on 25 January 2023, receiving the landlord’s stage one response on 8 February. However, there has been no evidence provided to suggest that the resident escalated his complaint after this. The landlord has also stated that the complaint was closed at this point, without further contact from the resident. Because the resident did not escalate his complaint he did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Therefore, as this issue has not completed both stages of the landlord’s complaints procedure, this investigation will not consider this part of the resident’s complaint.

 Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 8 November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord stating that he had a repair appointment that morning, but the landlord’s contractors had failed to attend. The resident alleges that during the call the landlord’s officer was rude to him and eventually hung up the phone. The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on the same day. He stated that the landlord’s officers had been repeatedly rude to him over several occasions. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had failed to take any action regarding staff behaviour, and later added that he felt discriminated against.
  3. The landlord responded on 22 November 2022, it explained that it had tried to listen to the phone call, but due to a system upgrade had been unable to do so. It apologised for the resident’s inconvenience and said that his complaint had highlighted the need for further training for both this specific officer, and all staff in general. It offered the resident £30 compensation, although this was offered outside of its written response.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 24 November 2022, as he was unhappy that the landlord did not take action against the specific officer he had dealt with. He asked the landlord what steps it would take to discipline the operative, and requested further compensation. The resident also asked for an apology from the individual operative in question.
  5. The landlord responded on 6 January 2023. It discussed a previous complaint made by the resident earlier in the year, regarding a different officer. The landlord explained that the resident had agreed to withdraw his complaint in September 2022. This event occurred prior to the resident’s complaint in November 2022, and was about a different member of staff. The landlord did not differentiate between the two separate instances and stated that no further action was required in response to the resident’s complaint regarding staff members. It concluded that £30 was sufficient compensation in the circumstances.
  6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he sought an apology from the officer he had dealt with, further compensation and an explanation on how the landlord intends to deal with the issue.

Assessment

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident has complained about specific members of staff and their conduct. According to paragraph 42 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which concern terms of employment or other personnel issues. This means that we will assess the actions of the landlord as an establishment rather than those of individual staff members. We also cannot make recommendations regarding a staff member’s terms of employment. Therefore, the focus of this report will be to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor service on 8 November 2022, but cannot consider any actions relating to specific staff members’ performance or employment.

The landlord’s handling of reports of poor customer service from its operatives.

  1. In-line with general good customer service standards, after the resident complained, the landlord would be expected to investigate the report, and ascertain what had occurred. The landlord acted appropriately by trying to listen to a recording of the call, but unfortunately could not, due to a system upgrade which had impacted saved calls. It discussed the events internally with the officer who had taken the resident’s call. It found that the resident and officer had a challenging phone conversation, which resulted in the officer terminating the call in an unprofessional manner, and counter to the landlord’s procedures.
  2. In response the landlord acted appropriately by apologising, offering compensation, implemented further training for the officer, and undertook to monitor the officer’s performance. It also undertook refresher training for its contact team in general. This was reasonable, as the landlord identified its failing, and ensured that it learnt from its mistakes by implementing further training amongst its staff. Overall, the landlord’s response to the customer service issue raised by the resident was wholly appropriate and proportionate. The remedies it offered, in the form of explanations, apologies, further training for its staff to improve its services, and compensation were reasonable in the circumstances of its poor customer service.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. In the landlord’s first complaint response, it acted appropriately by explaining the steps it had taken to investigate the resident’s concerns. It acknowledged that its investigation had highlighted the need for further training and apologised to the resident. This response was directly relevant to the resident’s complaint, and was in line with the expectations set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. However, the landlord’s response to the resident’s escalation request bears only a passing connection to the remaining issues of dissatisfaction he had raised – which centred on him wanting an apology from the officer he had spoken with on 8 November 2022, and increased compensation. In response, the landlord set out the details of a previous complaint the resident had made in September 2022 about an officer who had subsequently left the landlord’s employment. There is no apparent link between these two complaints, and the landlord’s explanation that no further action was required due to the events of the September complaint was clearly unsound, because the resident was complaining about his November interaction with a different staff member. This confusing response does not change the fact that the landlord had previously addressed the complaint reasonably (in its first response on 22 November), and that no new issues had been raised in the resident’s escalation request, but it was by any measure poor handling.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme,  the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of poor customer service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme, the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of a repair to the kitchen and bathroom extractor fans is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders

  1. In light of the landlord’s poor complaint handling, it is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100.
  2. If it has not yet done so, landlord should also pay the resident the £30 it offered as part of its own complaint investigation.

19.Evidence of these payments must be provided to the Ombudsman within four weeks of this report.