The Guinness Partnership Limited (202335480)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335480

The Guinness Partnership Limited

3 September 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the appointment of a single point of contact for the resident.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident occupied the property, a 3-bedroom house, from February 2021 on a secured tenancy. She moved out of the property on 30 April 2023 and is no longer the landlord’s tenant. The resident was a domestic abuse survivor.
  2. In July 2021, the resident told the landlord that it was not returning her telephone calls. The landlord addressed her correspondence and tried to manage the volume of contact. However, it found she had sent over 400 emails to different people and departments in a 3 month period and this had put unnecessary pressure on staff and resources. The landlord therefore decided on 6 August 2021 to restrict her to a single point of contact. She was limited to sending one email a week with the exception of reporting emergency repairs or needing to discuss rent. It would review the position after 28 days and she was given 7 days to appeal the decision.
  3. The resident advised the landlord throughout August and September 2021 that she was unhappy with its decision and with the person designated as the point of contact. In other correspondence she referred the landlord to its website which said “If we put a contact restriction in place, a customer may appeal against our decision to do this. Any contact restriction put in place will be for a limited time and reviewed, usually after 12 months.” The landlord had to remind the resident of the restriction on 11 and 18 August 2021 as she had contacted people other than the single point of contact.
  4. On 1 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had complained on 30 June 2022 that she was unhappy with the point of contact, and she felt she was being treated unfairly as she had been told in November 2021 that the restriction had been lifted, when that was not the case. The landlord confirmed the same day, that the restriction was still in place, and its terms.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 1 response of 7 July 2022 it did not uphold the complaint as there was no evidence of the resident being treated unfairly. The resident responded that the restriction had initially been for 3 months, rather than a year, and she had been told the restriction had been lifted in November 2021. She asked for the complaint to be escalated the same day and requested a call to discuss her concerns prior to the investigation. The resident advised that her point of contact did not call her and relied only on emails. The complaint was formally escalated on 11 July 2022.
  6. The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 27 July 2022 to discuss the outcome but did not speak with her. It issued its stage 2 response the same day. It did not uphold the complaint as it saw no reason to change the point of contact, and it explained the contact arrangement was for 12 months and was due for review the following month.
  7. The landlord issued a warning to the resident on 23 August 2022 as she had sent emails outside of the contact arrangement. It said she had not appealed the decision within 7 days so the restrictions were still in place.
  8. The landlord lifted the restriction on 23 March 2023.
  9. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention, the landlord wrote to the resident on 8 July 2024, accepting that there had been failings in its service, apologising for these and offering £150 compensation. It acknowledged that it had failed to make contact with her at stage 2 as requested, and that it could have done more to address her specific concerns around the point of contact.

Assessment and findings

The appointment of a single point of contact

  1. The landlord’s Managing Unacceptable Customer Behaviour procedure says where there is an issue with managing unreasonable demands from a resident, contact restrictions can be put in place, and a contact management plan completed. It says any restriction put in place will be for a limited time only (normally 12 months) and be reviewed after that time. It goes on to say the landlord should conduct a review of the customer’s behaviour towards the end of the restriction period (or as required if there is a breach). It should also aim to conduct the review and update the customer within 10 working days from the end of the restriction period. The landlord should determine the next appropriate steps and advise the customer.
  2. The landlord explained that it had received hundreds of emails from the resident in the months preceding its decision to restrict her contact. It is important to note that the Ombudsman is not considering the nature of the emails or forming a view on whether they were justified. Instead, this assessment is focused on whether the landlord’s actions in restricting contact were reasonable and in accordance with its policies and procedures.
  3. The landlord also has a Customer Code of Conduct which says it will take action if customers act inappropriately. If unreasonable behaviour puts demands on landlord staff, such as there being an excessive amount of contact, it may restrict the method and frequency of contact. As the landlord had received hundreds of emails from the resident, causing it to spend a disproportionate amount of time dealing with them, it was not unreasonable that it decided to limit her contact. Dealing with that level of correspondence was unlikely to be sustainable long term, particularly when the landlord had responsibilities to other residents.
  4. It is clear the resident was unhappy that her telephone calls were not being returned but, due to the amount of time spent dealing with her numerous contacts, it was also proportionate for the landlord to limit her contact to email only. It made it clear in the restriction letter, that she was still able to report emergency issues and discuss rent, if she needed to.
  5. The landlord complied with its obligations and completed a contact management plan and its letter of 6 August 2021 clearly set out the terms of the restriction. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident found this very restrictive and wanted the landlord to change the point of contact, the decision on who to appoint was a matter for the landlord. Having said that, the landlord has recently accepted that it could have done more to acknowledge the resident’s concerns over the point of contact; although, it found no issue with the way the point of contact had dealt with matters. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that, had it done more to note the resident’s concerns, it would have changed the outcome.
  6. The Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord had the right to restrict contact with the resident and it followed its procedure when doing so. It also did not need to change the point of contact if it found no issue with the way they were dealing with matters. However, the resident was advised on 6 August 2021 that a review would take place after 28 days and that indicated that the landlord may then reconsider its decision. Although there is evidence of the landlord writing to the resident later about her breaching the restriction, no evidence has been provided to show a review was carried out, or that the resident was advised of the outcome within 10 working days from the end of the restriction period as she should have been. This meant she was unaware whether a review had taken place, or how long she would need to wait until a review would take place.
  7. This lack of information clearly caused confusion later, because on 30 June 2022, the resident claimed she was told in November 2021 that the restriction had been lifted. While the landlord corrected her the same day, and confirmed the restriction was still in place, this confusion could have been avoided. The landlord should have conducted a review in September 2021 and advised the resident of the outcome and when the next one was due (as applicable).
  8. In addition to there being no evidence of a review in September 2021, the landlord’s Customer Code of Conduct says “If we put a contact restriction in place, a customer may appeal against our decision to do this. Any contact restriction put in place will be for a limited time and reviewed, usually after 12 months”. The resident was told on 27 July 2022 that a review was therefore due the following month. However, while the landlord issued a warning letter over a breach of the restriction on 23 August 2022, no evidence has been provided to show a review took place in August 2022, and the resident informed of the outcome or told when the next review would take place. The landlord therefore failed to comply with its Managing Unacceptable Customer Behaviour procedure.
  9. As well as the landlord not carrying out reviews in accordance with its obligations, the evidence shows the resident was given 7 days from 6 August 2021 to appeal the landlord’s decision to restrict contact. Although the landlord claimed she had not requested a review, on 11 August 2021 she responded by saying “I do not agree with your letter and it’s made up content I am to dispute it simple (sic)”. This was a clear rejection of the decision which should have been treated as an appeal by the landlord. While it is unlikely an appeal would have been successful (given that further warnings had been deemed necessary) this does not negate the landlord’s failure to follow due process and allow the resident to have her say.
  10. It is positive that the landlord has recently acknowledged that it should have acknowledged the resident’s request to discuss the stage 2 complaint much earlier. However, the Ombudsman also notes that the landlord did consider a number of emails from the resident which detailed her views, so her comments were considered in investigating and responding to the stage 2 complaint.
  11. The failures identified by the landlord were relatively minor, with no long-term effect on the resident. While it sought to redress those failings by offering £150 compensation, the Ombudsman does not consider that this was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused by the additional failings identified by this investigation (failure to carry out an appeal or reviews and update the resident as it should have). This amounts to maladministration and, while there was no permanent or long-term effect from this poor service, these omissions did cause the resident frustration which could have been avoided.
  12. The landlord’s Compensation policy says it will pay compensation for distress and inconvenience between £250 and £700 if the issue took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstrable impact on the customer. This bracket is relevant to this case as the landlord’s actions did affect the resident and her ability to access the landlord’s services. As a result, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400 (inclusive of the £150 already offered) in recognition of the impact of the poor service causing moderate frustration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s Complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days and a response at stage 1 within 10 working days from receipt of the complaint. If a complaint is escalated to stage 2, a response will be sent within 20 working days from the request to escalate.
  2. In this case, the landlord acknowledged the complaint the day after it was received and issued a stage 1 response a week later and a stage 2 response was issued 14 working days after the complaint was escalated.
  3. Although the landlord has recently accepted it could have done more to acknowledge and address the resident’s concerns when she complained, this has been addressed when looking at its overall handling of the restriction. In terms of the actual complaint handling, the landlord followed its processes and complied with its obligations under its policy; therefore, there was no maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the appointment of a single point of contact.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £400 compensation (inclusive of the £150 offered in July 2024).