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

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (201910162)

Back to Top

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910162

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

17 June 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:

a)     The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about the cleaning contract

b)     The LL’s response to the resident’s report about the conduct of the cleaner, and its respective complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Landlord’s Compliments, Comments and Complaints Policy

  1. Paragraph 4 of the policy provides information about the complaint process:
  2. 4.1. First stage resolution; the Trust will acknowledge customer complaints and will respond within 2 working days with a solution. Where we resolve the issue to the customer’s satisfaction, we will record what has happened and use this feedback to improve services. However, depending on the nature of the complaint an immediate response may not be possible or appropriate. If we need to investigate, the complaint will be logged as a formal complaint and dealt with under the “Investigation” stage of our process.
  3. 4.2. Investigation; If the customer is not happy with the First Stage Resolution, the appropriate manager will investigate the complaint. Certain complaints will not have a first stage resolution opportunity, and these will be dealt with at Investigation stage. We will write to the customer if we are investigating their complaint within 2 working days, setting out the complaints process. We aim to investigate and respond in writing within 10 working days. However, depending on the nature of the complaint it may take longer, if this is the case the Trust will contact the customer and agree a timeline.
  4. 4.3. Review: If a customer is not satisfied with the response to the investigation, they may request the complaint be reviewed. We will direct the customer to the review process at the end of the investigation stage. The review is not a repetition of the investigation. The complaint will be reviewed when our complaints process has not been followed or there are elements of the complaint that have not been addressed. The Trust will confirm with the customer when a review is taking place. A senior Trust manager will undertake the review. They will assess how the complaint was handled, how our policies and procedures were followed and how the issue has affected the customer. If any failures are found with the way the complaint was investigated or dealt with, the review response will address these. Our aim is to provide a final decision in writing within 15 working days. However, depending on the nature of the complaint it may take longer, if this is the case we will contact the customer to agree a revised timeline. If the complaint cannot be escalated to a review and the customer remains dissatisfied with the Trust’s final response they will be guided to seek an External Review.
  5. Paragraph 7 of the complaints policy relates to vexatious complaints:
  6. 7.1. The Trust is committed to investigating and responding to all complaints fairly, comprehensively, and in a timely manner. However, there are a minority of cases where a person complains in a way that prevents the Trust’s staff from investigating the complaint; takes up a disproportionate level of resources; or behaves in a way that is unacceptable. We deem these to be vexatious complaints.
  7. 7.2. In such cases, we will deal with the vexatious complaint on a proportionate basis which may vary from the standards described above. Our Vexatious Complaints Policy sets out the Trust’s position fully.

Vexatious Complaints Policy

  1. 2.1. The Trust is committed to investigating and responding to all complaints fairly, comprehensively, and in a timely manner. However, there are a minority of cases where a person complains in a way that prevents the Trust’s staff from investigating the complaint; takes up a disproportionate level of resources; or behaves in a way that is unacceptable. The Trust does not believe that a customer raising legitimate queries or criticisms of our services (or officers) should in itself lead to a complaint being regarded as vexatious or a complainant as unreasonably persistent. The Trust accepts that if a complainant is unhappy with the outcome of a complaint and seeks to challenge it, this should also not cause the Trust to label the complaint as vexatious. However, if a complainant behaves in a way that is unreasonably persistent or abusive the Trust will follow this policy. The Trust does not expect its staff to tolerate unacceptable behaviour by complainants or any customer and will take action to protect them from this.
  2. 5.1. Colleagues should refer potentially vexatious complaints to service managers for a decision on how to deal with the complainant. Where the service manager considers the complaint vexatious they will follow the following guidelines;

a) The service manager will contact the complainant to explain why their actions are causing concern and request that they change their behaviour. The service manager will explain the actions that the Trust may take if the behaviour does not change.

b) If the disruptive behaviour continues, a senior manager (Head of Service or equivalent) will write to the complainant advising them that the way in which they will be allowed to contact the Trust will be restricted. The letter will contain information about the procedures that have been put in place to deal with the complainant. The customer will be informed of their right to appeal this decision and right to refer to the Ombudsman if they wish to seek external review of the decision.

Background

  1. The tenant is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 02 October 2014.
  2.  In 2016, the resident started reporting to the landlord issues with the cleaning hours and the cleaner’s conduct. The resident stated that the cleaner was coming into the estate and leaving outside of the announced cleaning hours on the community board. In addition, the resident was reporting incidents where the cleaner behaved confrontationally towards them.
  3.  In August 2018, the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident and informed them that the landlord was restricting their contact with it due to persistent emails, telephone calls and live chats related to various issues. The landlord explained that the resident could report housing emergencies as usual. The resident’s contact was restricted to making up to one report per week concerning each of the following issues: ASB, queries for information and repair reports.
  4.  The resident continued reporting issues during 2019, including incidents when they alleged that the cleaner was confrontational, alongside issues with the cleaner’s productivity and working hours.
  5.  During this period the landlord received counter allegations about the resident’s behaviour towards the cleaning contractor and the landlord’s staff.
  6. On 12 August 2019 and 18 September 2019, the landlord received reports from its staff and cleaning contractors about the resident’s behaviour and wrote to the resident warning them about their behaviour. It extended its contact restrictions to only one contact per week for any issues except emergencies. The landlord explained it would not reply to matters that did not concern the resident’s tenancy or matters that had been previously raised. The landlord also explained that it would not be replying further about the cleaner’s productivity, hours or the cleaning contract and will deal with the caretaker’s contract internally.

Summary of Events

  1. On 18 October 2019, the resident reported an encounter with the cleaner from earlier the same day. They reported that they have asked the cleaner about cleaning hours. The resident explained that the manner of the cleaner’s response made them feel threatened and unsafe. The resident stated that they had contacted the police and the police had advised them to forward their concerns to the landlord.
  2.  On 23 October 2019 and 30 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to remind it that its response about the cleaner’s conduct was outstanding. The resident added that the cleaner responded aggressively when they asked them about cleaning hours. The resident also requested information about the cleaning contract including the number of hours the cleaner was supposed to spend at the property, their start and finish times and their contact details. The resident also reported an additional incident with the cleaner splashing their glass.
  3.  The landlord made an attempt to contact the cleaner asking for a summary of the incident on 24 October 2019, 31 October 2019 and 07 November 2019, this Service has seen no evidence that the cleaner responded.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident on 31 October 2019 to the issues reported on 18 October 2019. The landlord stated that it was awaiting a full response from the cleaner in relation to the resident’s reports before it could comment any further. The landlord commented that its initial investigation showed ‘that as with your [the resident’s] previous complaints it was you that was anti-social not the cleaner.’ The landlord added that should its investigation show that the resident was the one being unreasonable, it would consider the complaint as false and malicious, and a further breach to the tenancy agreement.
  5. The landlord, additionally, referred the resident to its letter of 18 September 2019 which concerned the resident’s contact with the landlord and included a warning about their behaviour towards staff and contractors.
  6. On 2 November 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to request that it respond to their complaint from 18 October 2019 and asked again for information about when the cleaning contractor should provide the service and when they should be on site, explaining that this affected their privacy, peace and personal space. The resident said they felt that the landlord was ignoring their correspondence.
  7. The landlord responded on 04 November 2019, stating that:
    1. It would not provide the information about the contract as the contract is between the landlord and the cleaning company.
    2. The landlord explained that any issues with the cleaning company should be reported to it to deal with.
    3. In relation to the window splashing, the landlord explained that it would not be taking ‘petty’ complaints.
    4. The landlord explained it had already responded to the issues raised on 18 October about staff conduct in its response of 31 October 2019.
    5. The landlord again referred the resident to its letter of 18 September 2019 where it had restricted their contact with it due to the resident’s behaviour towards staff and repetitive complaints. The landlord explained that it would not respond further about the cleaner’s productivity, hours or the cleaning contract and would deal with the caretaker’s contract internally.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 05 November 2019, providing the landlord’s responses of 18 September 2019 and 04 November 2019.
  9. On 06 December 2019 this Service contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint. On 5 February 2020, this Service asked the landlord for clarification on the complaints process and its position on the complaint.
  10. The landlord responded directly to the Ombudsman on 19 February 2020 informing this Service that it applied its vexatious policy and confirming its position as set in the response of the 04 November 2019, particularly it would not supply its cleaning contractor information as the contract is between the landlord and the provider. The landlord stated that the resident had been advised that any complaint would need to be referred to the landlord rather than directly to the supplier. It also stated that it did not escalate the complaint as it did not meet its complaints policy.
  11. On 26 February 2020, following reports of incidents by the cleaner about the resident’s behaviour towards him, the landlord issued the resident with a further warning in relation to their anti-social behaviour towards the cleaner and the landlord’s staff. The landlord explained in its warning that it tried to visit the resident on 11 February 2020, but the resident closed their door on the landlord staff. No further information was provided to the resident as to what specific incidents the warning was for or whether the staff conduct complaint was further discussed with the cleaner. 
  12. Following further contact from this Service in April 2020, asking the landlord to confirm whether it would review the complaint, the landlord agreed to provide a final response to the resident’s complaint.
  13. The landlord issued its final response on 27 May 2020. It confirmed that it managed the contract with the cleaning company and as such any issues with the cleaner and the cleaning services should be reported to the landlord to deal with. The landlord stated that it had raised the issue with the splashing of the glass with the cleaning contractor. However, the nature of the work made it impossible to avoid occasional splashing. The landlord confirmed again that it had responded to the issues raised about the staff conduct from 18 October 2019. It stated it considered that the resident’s complaints about the cleaning service and conduct of the cleaner were made vexatiously, and reminded the resident about the restrictions on their contact with it. It stated that it would not reply to queries that did not warrant a reply.
  14. The landlord enclosed a warning letter stating that it considered that the resident displayed disruptive behaviour and despite previous warnings they had continued to raise unimportant questions, insisted on answers and refused to accept that certain issues were not within the scope of the complaints process. The landlord confirmed the restrictions it had placed on the resident’s contact in its solicitor’s letter from 2019 would continue, and that it would not respond to queries or complaints which it considered vexatious or to which it had already responded.
  15. The resident brought their complaint to this Service on 25 September 2020. They explained that the following issues remained outstanding:
    1. The landlord’s had not responded to their request for contact details for the cleaning contractor.
    2. The resident felt that the landlord had not resolved the issue with the cleaner’s conduct fairly. The resident felt that cleaning hours were not kept and that the landlord had stopped providing information on a communal noticeboard concerning the cleaning service.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about the cleaner’s conduct and the refusal of the landlord to accept this as a valid complaint so that the resident could progress it. 

 

Assessment and findings

Information about the cleaning contract.

  1. In their complaint to the landlord about the cleaning service, the resident explained the following:
    1. They believed that the cleaner’s behaviour towards them was confrontational, and that this was increasing in frequency.
    2. They were unaware of the hours the cleaning company kept, therefore they were unable to avoid contact with the cleaner.
    3. They asked for the cleaning company’s contact details so that they could ask it to confirm the hours it would be onsite.
  2.  The landlord explained that cleaning was provided by a contractor. It managed the provision of cleaning services, therefore any queries or complaints about the cleaning service should be made directly to the landlord.
  3. Cleaning services are provided by a contractor on behalf of the landlord. As with other contractors which the landlord may use, there is no relationship between the cleaning company and residents, any queries or complaints about the cleaning service should be made to the landlord.  It was appropriate for the landlord to withhold the contractor’s contact details, and handle any queries or complaints about the cleaning service itself.

 

Complaint about the cleaner’s conduct and the landlord’s complaint handling

  1. In their complaint about the cleaner’s conduct of 18 October 2019, the resident made allegations about the behaviour of the contractor. They explained that they made enquiries about the cleaning service and felt that the contractor’s responded in a threatening manner. The Ombudsman cannot make findings of whether improper conduct of the landlord’s staff has occurred but can consider whether the landlord’s response to the report was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. 
  2. In its response of 31 October 2019, the landlord acknowledged the complaint and committed to investigate the issue further.
  3. The landlord made initial enquiries to the contractor, asking for a summary of the incident reported by the resident on 18 October 2019, but did not receive a response. Following this incident, this Service has seen warnings sent to the resident about their behaviour but there is no information as to whether the warnings were in relation to this particular incident. Although the landlord committed to investigate the incident further and to inform the resident of the outcome of this investigation, it has failed to do so.
  4. The resident contacted this Service for assistance in November 2019 when they did not receive a further response to the staff conduct complaint. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and it explained that its emails in October and November were in response to the complaint and would not consider the matter further. On a few occasions the landlord referred to its response of October which actually did not address the resident’s complaint about staff conduct but was rather a commitment that it would investigate this further.
  5. If the landlord had decided that the complaint was not suitable for consideration under its complaint process, then it had an obligation to inform the resident of this. However, in its responses, it offered to investigate the complaint, but then failed to do so or explain why it would not.
  6. There were also delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and it was necessary for the resident to seek further assistance from this Service before a final response was sent on 27 May 2020. This was over 3 months from the initial request to escalate the complaint and was unreasonably delayed.

 Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about providing the cleaning contractor’s contact information.

In accordance with paragraph 54 there is maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about the conduct of the cleaning contractor.

 

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the information request about the cleaning contract.

  1. It was appropriate for the landlord to withhold the cleaning company’s contact details as the landlord is responsible for handling queries and complaints about the standard of the cleaning service.

The complaint about the conduct of the cleaner and the landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord acknowledged that there was a complaint about the conduct of one of its contractors and offered to investigate this as part of its response to the resident’s complaint. Although the landlord made initial enquiries, there is no evidence to show that it followed these up and its complaint responses did not address this issue.
  2. When a resident submits a complaint, the landlord should assess whether it is appropriate to investigate the matter under its complaint procedure and respond accordingly. In this case, the landlord accepted the resident’s complaint about the contractor but did not provide a response addressing this issue. This was maladministration on the part of the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay compensation to the resident of £100.00 within the next four weeks, and provide confirmation of payment to this Service (broken down as follows):

a)     For the landlord’s failure to investigate thorough and fairly the resident’s reports of staff conduct of 18 October 2019 – £50.             

b)  For the landlord’s delay in complaint handling – £50.

  1. It is recommended that the landlord considers providing further training to its staff in relation to handling of complaints, and particularly those made by complainants it considers to be vexatious. There is extensive information and support available for landlords on the Ombudsman’s website – https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/guidance-notes/managing-unacceptable-behaviour-policy/