Wandsworth Council (202229787)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229787

Wandsworth Council

31 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about staff conduct, including fraud and racism.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs, including repairs to the heating system after it had been replaced and reports of damp and mould.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Under paragraph 42 of the Scheme the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
In this instance part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman involves the landlord’s response to his reports of repairs. This did not form part of the original complaint, which was about the conduct of the landlord’s staff when they attended the property to replace the heating system in July 2023.
Based on the records seen the repair issues occurred after the heating system was replaced and after the stage 2 response was issued.
As this is a separate issue to the complaint initially raised with the landlord, this is not a subject that the Ombudsman can make a determination on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to first investigate and respond to. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.
Similarly in a recent call the resident said that the repairs and issues with the landlord have been going on for years, for example issues with the kitchen for 20 years and issues with the heating.
While the Ombudsman does not dispute that there may have been issues for many years, the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of previous complaints before 2023. That said, even if such evidence had been provided, under Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme we may not consider complaints brought to us more than 12 months after the landlord has issued a response to a complaint.

Background

Since 1 May 1996 the resident has held a secure tenancy on a 1 bedroom flat. He lives alone and there is evidence of additional needs, which the landlord is aware of but says there is no official record.
In February 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to carry out a survey for a new heating system. The resident later raised a complaint on the basis that during the visit they did not act professionally, said he had too many belonging and called them “rubbish”.
On 27 February 2023 the resident informed the Ombudsman about this complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to this complaint on 10 March 2023 and the stage 2 on 18 April 2023.
Around July 2023 works to upgrade the communal heating system in the block started. On 17 July 2023 the landlord’s contractors and property manager attended the resident’s property to move items from it into the communal area directly outside and to replace the radiators.
The visit and the removal of the items had previously been agreed with the resident, however on the 17 July 2023 he had changed his mind and refused to allow the removal of his belongings.
As a result the radiators could only be replaced in the hallway and bedroom, as the resident had cleared these areas, but the contractors were unable to access the living room and kitchen due to the number of items in these rooms. The resident was advised that the works could not be completed until these rooms were cleared of enough items to allow access to them.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 21 July 2023 about:
1. The workmen starting work 2 hours late because the manager did not arrive on time.
2. The landlord having alleged that all the radiators could not be installed due to the amount of items in the property, but the contractors told him it was because they didn’t have all 5 in stock.
3. Photographs of the property having been taken without his permission.
4. The contractor having threatened to “kick his effing head in”.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 2 August 2023 and responded to the resident’s complaint points as follows:
1. The manager arrived and works were started at 9am as was agreed, the suggestion that they started 2 hours late would mean works were meant to start at 7am which would not have been agreed.
2. It was not clear who said the radiators were not in stock but the reason all the radiators could not be installed was the volume of personal items in the property.
3. It was confirmed that the contractor did not ask for permission before taking photographs, however the resident did not raise this issue at the time and had he done so the contractor would have stopped.
4. The contractor denied physically threatening the resident and had stated that a number of threats, including physical ones, were made towards him during the visit and had been made towards other employees and/or operatives. On the day the threats he made towards the contractor were witnessed by the landlord’s representative and a number of residents.
5. The response also said it was unclear why the resident believed the contractor and property manager dismissed his complaints as a waste of time but the matter was now being dealt with as per the landlord’s corporate complaints procedure.
On 4 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to explain why he disagreed with the stage 1 response and confirmed he wanted the complaint escalated to stage 2 on 8 August 2023. The reason for the escalation was that he believed the stage 1 response was based on “laziness, racism, lies”, for example that the contractors were only ever ready to install 3 radiators and not the 5 which the landlord has claimed were meant to be.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued on 22 August 2023 and states:
1. On 17 July 2023 the property manager attempted to mediate between the resident and the contractor to find a solution that would allow the heating works to be completed, but this was met with verbal abuse and physical intimidation.
2. There was no evidence that the property manager or contractor behaved in the manner alleged by the resident, but his unacceptable behaviour was witnessed by a number of other people.
3. The resident had since made a number of allegations of racism against several of the landlord’s officers, no basis for which had been found and had been upsetting for the officers involved.
4. It was understood that the contractor had since been allowed to work unimpeded and the works to the heating system were complete, apart from the boxing in of some pipework which the resident should contact the contractor directly to arrange.
5. The resident had since been provided the photographs the contractor took on 17 July 2023.
Following the stage 2 response the resident continued to communicate with the Ombudsman about his issues with the landlord and the complaint was deemed as duly made on 30 January 2024.
Within more recent correspondence in July 2024 it was mentioned to the resident that the focus of this complaint investigation would be the events of July 2023 and the landlord’s response to the complaint raised about them. During discussions with the resident about this complaint he was asked if he wished us to include that complaint within this investigation, he declined to confirm so. This investigation has therefore focussed on the complaint made on 21 July 2023.
Should the resident wish for the Ombudsman to investigate the February 2023 complaint, he will need to request so of this service.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s concerns about staff conduct

The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being racist and threatening towards him. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, we may not investigate 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. Race (including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin) is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act 2010, however the Ombudsman does not have the power to decide whether a landlord has breached the Equalities Act 2010. Only the courts have the authority to make that decision.
However we can look at whether the landlord acted reasonably (in the circumstance) and appropriately. For instance whether the landlord’s overall communications with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair and reasonable. This includes its assessment and investigation into concerns about alleged racism/discrimination.
Similarly the resident also believes the landlord’s staff have committed fraud, for example by misrepresenting themselves as a fire marshal when they were actually a secretary, faking police reports and destroying evidence to cover up their alleged wrongdoing.
Based on the records seen the resident has previously reported to the landlord that he believed its staff were not suitably qualified and were misrepresenting themselves, this formed part of the resident’s February 2023 complaint which is not the focus of this investigation.
However it is also important to note that the resident’s other allegations of fraud have not formed part of either the February or July 2023 complaints, and in fact have been made after these complaint investigations. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. As such the resident would need to raise a complaint and allow the landlord the opportunity to investigate and respond to these allegations in their totality before the Ombudsman could look into whether it acted reasonably.
As previously mentioned, the Ombudsman’s role when investigating a complaint is to assess the evidence that is available in order to determine whether the landlord has acted reasonably and appropriately. Where a resident reports inappropriate behaviour from a member of the landlord’s staff and/or operatives, the landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s allegations and to take appropriate action.
Based on the records seen, the landlord investigated the resident’s concerns by putting the allegations made in his complaint to the staff and/or operatives and reviewing their reports of events from the day in question. These reports and correspondence contain a good level of detail about what happened on the day and are consistent, therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on them.
The stage 1 response states the contractor denied physically threatening the resident and he said that a number of threats, including physical violence, were made towards him during the visit and have also been made towards other staff members. It also states the resident’s threats were witnessed by the property manager and a number of residents.
The stage 2 response states there is no evidence that the contractor behaved in the manner alleged by the resident and again refers to their previous comments about the resident’s own behaviour towards him and the property manager, as well as his allegations of racism against several other officers.
From the evidence seen the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns by interviewing and securing statements from the staff members and operatives involved, as well as their logs, to obtain their version of events. It then shared the result of this investigation with the resident through the stage 1 and 2 responses.
Landlords are entitled to rely on information provided to them by their contractors and representatives in the absence of contradicting independent third party evidence, and in this instance the landlord’s investigation found no evidence to support that its employees had acted in the way the resident had alleged.
With regard to the resident taking issue with the contractor taking photographs of the property without permission, it is not unusual for photographs to be taken both before, during and/or after works are carried out in order to accurately record their progress.
This would particularly apply where the works can not be completed due to the condition/upkeep of the property, and in this instance it was reported that not all of the radiators could be installed due to the number of personal items in the property blocking access to the relevant areas. Also of note is that by providing the resident with copies of these photographs, as the stage 2 response confirms had been done, the landlord gave the resident the opportunity to identify any photos he did not want kept on file.
It is not disputed that the resident felt the landlord’s staff did not act appropriately when they attended the property and he felt discriminated against. However, based on the evidence provided, the landlord’s investigation into the allegations were of an adequate standard and its position is considered reasonable. As such the Ombudsman finds there has been no maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.

Recommendation

The landlord is encouraged to continue to work constructively with third parties, as appropriate, to assist in affecting its landlord duties to this resident.