Citizen Housing (202010136)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010136

Citizen Housing

11 August 2022

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 the resident’s concerns regarding:
1. its decision to implement contact restrictions;
2. its request for service charge arrears;
3. taking into account her disability when providing services.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling, specifically its decision to provide a single response to the resident’s complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder at the property of the landlord since 14 August 1995. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is a leasehold house. As per the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for obtaining building insurance for the property, which is recoverable through the service charge.
The resident obtains a housing benefit which covers the rent and service charge, which is paid directly to the landlord.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that the landlord may initially attempt a ‘quick resolution’ to a resident’s concerns before instigating a stage one investigation.
The landlord operates an unacceptable behaviour policy. The policy document provided to this service was last reviewed in October 2015. The policy notes that it considers insistence on speaking with specific staff members and contacting multiple staff members about the same issue to be ‘unreasonable demands’. The policy also notes that refusal to accept explanations or decisions made and continuing to pursue an issue without new information to be ‘unreasonable persistence’. It also considers complaints that take up a disproportionate amount of time to be “vexatious.” In dealing with the above, the landlord may chose to restrict contact from a resident to a single staff member, and/or to a single method of contact, such as email only. The policy notes that such steps will be reviewed on a “six monthly basis,” and include an “appeals process that customers can access.” If restrictions are to remain in place, evidence must be provided as to why.
The resident has previously brought a complaint against the landlord to this service. Case # 201507817 dated 24 March 2016 related to (amongst other complaints), the landlord’s handling of her request for a disabled parking bay. The investigation found there was no maladministration in relation to this complaint.

Summary of events

Following the Ombudsman’s earlier decision in March 2016, the resident continued to correspond with the landlord regarding the issues referred to in the Ombudsman’s investigation. On several occasions in April 2016, the landlord advised its position was that as these issues had been determined by the Ombudsman, it would not revisit them.
Following further communications from the resident, the landlord instructed its legal representatives to contact the resident. On 19 July 2017, the landlord’s legal representatives confirmed that the landlord had given its position on the issues raised by the resident and that it would not revisit them. They also advised that correspondence sent to senior members of staff would be referred to staff at a lower level. They further advised that they considered persistent demands that only the landlord’s CEO respond to be unreasonable, and that the landlord would consider further action if this continued.
Following further communications from the resident, on 11 September 2017, the landlord’s legal representatives sent a ‘cease and desist’ letter to the resident regarding her high levels of correspondence which continued to be addressed to senior members of staff. They advised that the landlord had implemented its unreasonable behaviour protocols, and that going forward, the resident was to address all correspondence to a single point of contact, by email only. They also advised that any correspondence sent to other members of staff would be forwarded to the single point of contact. They further advised that correspondence not relevant to the services provided by the landlord would not be responded to. This correspondence did not provide any details relating to how long these measures would be in place, or how the resident could request a review.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord advised the resident that there was an amount of £12.08 outstanding on her service charge account. On 4 September 2020, the resident disputed this could be the case and advised her housing benefit should cover the total service charge amount.
On 13 September 2020, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that she had not had any follow up correspondence from the landlord. The landlord replied on 17 September 2020 and noted that the resident’s correspondence had not been addressed to the designated single point of contact and as such, there had been a delay in the response. The landlord explained that the additional service charge amount was the result of the final costs for that year, which had exceeded the estimate. It advised that while the resident was responsible for this amount, she may be able to claim it through her housing benefit.
On 18 September 2020, the resident expressed her dissatisfaction that the service charge estimates had been incorrect. She also advised that in order to claim any benefit, the landlord would need to provide evidence of its miscalculations, but that in any case, she considered the landlord to be responsible for this amount as it had miscalculated.
On 2 October 2020, the landlord provided a further explanation about how its initial estimates were calculated, and that it was common for adjustments to be applied at the end of the year once final figures were known. It referred the resident to ‘lease.com’ for more information. It also advised that “the £12.08p has been covered by a small credit on your account,” but that if the resident wished to claim this back through her housing benefit, it could provide any required evidence.
On 4 October 2020, the resident disputed the amount had been covered and noted it still showed as outstanding on her account. She also expressed her dissatisfaction at being referred to lease.com.
On 11 January 2021, the resident advised she wished to make a formal complaint regarding the service charge error, and also complained that the single point of contact at the landlord was providing her with poor service.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord replied and advised that the single point of contact did not prevent her from accessing the landlord’s services, and that the contact person had previously given her advice regarding the service charge calculation. It also reiterated its offer to provide supporting evidence should she wish to claim through her housing benefit.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this service. Following contact from this service, the resident opened a stage one complaint on 11 February 2021. It is evident that the landlord subsequently sought to discuss the complaint with the resident over the telephone, but that the resident declined and advised that she wished for all correspondence to be via email.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 February 2021. The landlord noted it had previously provided an explanation regarding the service charge amount, which it reiterated. It also noted it had offered to assist with any housing benefit claim. It additionally advised it had reviewed the service provided by the single point of contact and that it found this to have been “courteous and acceptable.”
Following this response, the resident contacted this service and advised she was unhappy with the response. She advised she considered her complaints to be separate, and that she wanted two responses. The landlord subsequently advised it considered the complaints to be connected and advised it would respond to all concerns in its stage two response.
On 19 April 2021, the landlord clarified that it was also investigating the resident’s concerns about the single point of contact and the landlord’s use of its legal representatives to cause her distress. It also noted the resident had concerns that the service provided by the landlord did not account for her disability. It subsequently requested the resident provide up to date information about her disability for it to consider.
On 26 April 2021, the resident declined to provide further information and noted the landlord should already have information about her disability. It is also evident that during this period, the landlord advised its stage two response would be delayed.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 7 May 2021, in which it noted the following:
1. Regarding the contact restrictions, it advised it had requested its legal representatives contact the resident only after initially attempting to resolve what it considered to be unreasonable behaviour itself. It advised that the contact restrictions remained in place due to an ongoing high volume of contact, which the resident continued to address to senior members of staff. It also advised it had reviewed the single point of contact’s communication and disputed they had been discourteous or unhelpful;
2. Regarding the service charge, the landlord noted it had explained its position previously and reiterated its explanation. It advised that the £12.08 was still outstanding. It also noted the resident was unhappy the landlord had contacted the housing benefit office directly and advised that as it was paid directly from this office, it was entitled to contact them. It reassured the resident that no personal circumstances of the resident had been disclosed;
3. Regarding the resident’s concerns about her disability, the landlord noted it had sought further information about this but that the resident had declined. It noted its current understanding of her disability was that she had Osteoarthritis. It noted its obligations to the resident were to provide service charge accounting and arrange building insurance, and so it was unclear as to how her disability affected its service delivery. It concluded that it would make any reasonable adjustments the resident advised. The landlord also surmised that the resident’s comments regarding disability may have been intended to relate to her historic request for a disabled parking bay. The landlord confirmed that it would not revisit this historic complaint.
On 12 May 2021, the resident advised she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
On 2 July 2021, the landlord advised that following ongoing discussions with the housing benefit office, the housing benefit office had agreed to cover the outstanding service charge amount. The resident has since reiterated to this service that she is concerned the landlord contacts the housing benefit office without first seeking her permission.

Assessment and findings

Contact restriction

The Ombudsman understands that a landlord’s service capacity is finite, and it is therefore reasonable to have measures in place to manage instances where a disproportionate demand is placed on its services.
The landlord’s unreasonable behaviour policy notes that it considers persistent demands to speak to senior staff members, similar requests made to multiple staff members, and a refusal to accept explanations or decisions to be unreasonable behaviour. This is in line with what the Ombudsman would expect an unreasonable behaviour policy to include.
It is evident that following the Ombudsman’s decision in 2016 regarding her request for a disabled parking bay, the resident remained passionate about this issue. She subsequently sent numerous communications which she directed at senior members of the landlord’s staff. The landlord appropriately outlined its position that it would not revisit this issue following the Ombudsman’s determination. The Ombudsman considers such a position to be reasonable, as this represents the end of the landlord’s internal dispute processes. This does not preclude the resident seeking other legal remedies.
Having reiterated this position on a number of occasions, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider taking action to manage the resident’s communications. It was reasonable for it to seek legal advice on this issue and it was appropriate that in the first instance, it issued (through its legal representatives) a warning regarding her behaviour, giving clear examples, and requesting that this behaviour discontinue.
Having given this warning, following continued behaviour, it was reasonable for the landlord to then implement contact restrictions. Given that the concerns were that multiple senior members of staff were contacted regarding decisions that the landlord had made clear would not change, it was reasonable to restrict the contact to a single point of contact, to request that contact be made by email only, and to advise responses would only be given to communications relating to the landlord’s service obligations.
The resident has expressed concern that this communication was sent through the landlord’s legal representative. Given, however, that multiple earlier warnings had been given by the landlord itself, it was proportionate to reflect the seriousness of the issues for it to have used a communication from its legal representative. It was also appropriate that the landlord explained this reasoning in its stage two response.
It is not disputed that the obligations of the landlord are limited to only providing service charge accounting and arranging for building insurance. This service has not been presented with any evidence that the single point of contact at the landlord has failed to deliver these services or respond to communications from the resident within a reasonable timeframe. While there were occasions where some time elapsed between a communication from the resident and a reply from the landlord, it is evident that the resident sent her communications to members of the staff other than the single point of contact, and so such delays were reasonable.
As part of her complaint, the resident made it clear she wished for the single point of contact to be changed. The landlord appropriately reviewed the service provided by its single point of contact, and based on the evidence provided to this service, its finding that the service provided was courteous and acceptable was reasonable. While it was not obliged to change the single point of contact, it would have been helpful had it specifically articulated its position on this request, which it did not do. As it had appropriately investigated the single point of contact’s service, however, this alone would not constitute service failure.
The Ombudsman considers contact restrictions to be reasonable, however, they must be regularly reviewed, and residents must be informed about when such a review will occur, and how they can appeal. These requirements are also set out in the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s initial letter implementing the contact restrictions did not provide any information about a periodic review of the measures implemented, nor did it provide any information about the possibility of an appeal. In the subsequent five years since the contact restrictions were implemented, no mention of a review or ability to appeal has ever been mentioned. While the landlord noted in its stage two response that some of the unreasonable behaviour was continuing, this did not amount to a reasonable review of the restrictions.
This omission to provide the correct information to the resident regarding the rights afforded to her in the landlord’s policy, along with the failure to carry out any meaningful review in five years amounts to maladministration. The imbalanced position the landlord has imposed on the resident in perpetuity, contrary to its policy and what the Ombudsman would consider reasonable, would have caused her distress. An amount of compensation is therefore appropriate to reflect this distress. This must be balanced against the actual detriment caused to the resident. As noted above, the Ombudsman considers that the resident continued to have reasonable access to the landlord’s services through the single point of contact. Nevertheless, given the failure to adhere to the policy for such a significant period, an amount of £250 is appropriate, being £50 for each year the landlord failed to carry out a review of the contact restrictions.
Additionally, an order has been made below for the landlord to review the contact restrictions within four weeks of the date of this determination and provide contemporary evidence should it determine the contact restrictions are to continue. It must also provide information about how the resident can appeal its decision.

Service charge

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that complaints that concern the level or increase of a service charge are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can, however, consider the landlord’s communication in relation to such a complaint.
Following the landlord’s letter requesting the final service charge amount in August 2020, the resident noted she understood this amount to be covered by her housing benefit. The landlord appropriately provided a reasonable explanation that this amount was due to the difference between the estimate and the final amount, and that she may indeed be able to cover it through her housing benefit, but that it was unable to decide this, and that in the meantime, the amount remained outstanding.
It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that it is very common for there to be a difference in the estimated service charge and the final service charge. This is because the estimate is often based on previous years’ accounts, which are not reflective of cost increases for the current year. This is standard practice in the industry, and the Ombudsman would not expect such a discrepancy to remove the resident’s financial obligation. Such a determination, however, is beyond the scope of this investigation and is more appropriate for the courts.
It was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to have given an explanation for the discrepancy and for it to have given its position that the amount remained owed. It was also appropriate that it offered to provide any necessary evidence to assist with a claim made to the housing benefit office. Following further concerns from the resident, it was also appropriate that the landlord repeated this explanation.
In its communication on 2 October 2020, the landlord advised that the outstanding amount had been recovered from a credit on the resident’s account. The resident noted this was not the case, and the landlord subsequently referred to the amount as outstanding in its future communications. While this caused some confusion, given that it made it clear the amount was outstanding in several further communications, this alone would not amount to service failure.
Following the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord appropriately referred to its earlier explanations and reiterated them. It also appropriately reiterated its offer to assist with the housing benefit claim for the outstanding amount.
The resident has expressed her concern that the shared ownership agreement requires her consent for matters relating to the shared ownership property, and that the landlord did not seek her consent when discussing the service charge arrears with the benefits office.
The jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the scheme). Paragraph 39(i) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman 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.
It is not disputed that the landlord had a pre-existing dialogue with the benefits office. This service has not been provided with evidence regarding the origin of this ongoing dialogue i.e. whether there was express or implied consent given. It is also beyond the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to determine if such forms of consent satisfy the requirement for consent in the shared ownership agreement, or whether a dialogue between the landlord and the benefits office is captured at all by the requirements of the shared ownership agreement. Such a determination is more appropriate for the courts. The Ombudsman notes that other legal remedies in relation to this element of the complaint may be available to the resident and further notes that she has the option to seek legal advice in relation to this.
The resident has also expressed concern that the landlord referred her to lease.com in relation to further information regarding service charges. While the resident may have already been aware of the information on lease.com as a experienced leaseholder, it was nevertheless reasonable for the landlord to have signposted this service, which the Ombudsman considers to contain useful and continually updated information for leaseholders. It is not evident that this referral was intended to be in any way malicious.
In summary, the landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to the cause of the additional service charge amount, which it appropriately reiterated throughout its responses. It also offered reasonable assistance to resolve the issue with the housing benefit office.

Disability

Where a resident is affected by a disability, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to make reasonable adjustments to account for their needs.
It is evident that in or around April 2022, during correspondence relating to the complaint, the resident raised concerns that the landlord had not taken into account her disability when providing services.
The landlord subsequently appropriately sought to clarify the nature of the resident’s disability. While it is evident the landlord was already aware the resident was affected by a disability, it was reasonable that it sought up to date information.
Following the resident’s choice not to provide any further information regarding her disability, it was reasonable for the landlord to have noted its understanding of the resident’s disability and explain its position that it was unclear how this affected its service delivery. It was also appropriate that it reiterated its request for further information about what reasonable adjustments it could make.
It is evident that the resident remains concerned about the outcome of her request for a disabled parking bay, and so it was also reasonable that, while not articulated as part of the complaint, the landlord reiterated its position on revisiting this concern.
The resident has also reiterated this concern to this service, however, under The Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is unable to revisit matters on which the Ombudsman has already decided upon. This does not prevent the resident from seeking other legal remedies.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it may attempt to initially informally resolve a complaint. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 11 January 2021, the landlord did not open a formal complaint, but instead provided a detailed response to the issues raised on 22 January 2021. This was a reasonable attempt to provide an early informal response to the resident’s concerns. Following advice from this service that the resident wanted a formal response, the landlord appropriately opened a stage one investigation, and its earlier attempt to informally resolve the complaint would not constitute service failure.
The resident has also expressed concern that the landlord did not provide separate responses for her complaints about the service charge and her concerns about its single point of contact. The Ombudsman does not consider it necessary to provide separate responses for all complaints and given that each concern was addressed individually in the landlord’s complaint responses, this approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
It is also evident that the landlord’s stage two response was delayed. The Ombudsman considers delays to responses to be reasonable where the landlord provides an update to residents that there will be a delay, and in this instance, it is evident that such an update was provided. This delay would not therefore amount to service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its decision to implement contact restrictions.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding:
1. its request for service charge arrears;
2. taking into account the resident’s disability when providing services;
3. its complaints handling.

Reasons

Contact restriction

While the landlord’s initial decision to implement contact restrictions was reasonable, its subsequent failure to review its decision or advise the resident how she could appeal its decision, over a significant period of time, amounted to maladministration.

Service charge

The landlord provided a reasonable explanation as to the cause of the additional service charge amount, which it appropriately reiterated throughout its responses. It also offered reasonable assistance to resolve the issue with the housing benefit office.

Disability

The landlord made appropriate enquiries as to what reasonable adaptions it could make in relation to the resident’s disability.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s initial attempt to resolve the complaint informally was reasonable, and its decision to consider all the issues in a single response was also reasonable given that it provided its position to each concern separately within the response. Its delayed response was also reasonable given that it provided prior warning.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £250 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to review her contact restrictions or provide information about how to appeal its decision.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. the outcome of a review of its contact restrictions;
2. should the restrictions remain in place:
  1. the evidence on which the decision was made;
  2. the date on which a further review will occur;
  3. how the resident can appeal its decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to ensure its staff have up to date training regarding its contact restriction policy.