Kingston upon Thames Council (202000332)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000332

Kingston upon Thames Council

07 December 2020


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 decision to appoint her current single point of contact (SPOC) and the poor service she has received from him.
    2. The landlord’s handling of works to the resident’s kitchen cupboard to widen a hole to allow a smart meter to be installed.
    3. The landlord’s complaints 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.
  2. The resident has complained about the single point of contact (SPOC) arrangement, the appointment of her current SPOC and the service he has provided. Paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints that seek to raise again matters which the Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
  3. The assignment of an SPOC and the conduct of the resident’s current SPOC was considered by this Service in a previous complaint, reference 201910627. In this Service’s review response to that complaint, dated 27 November 2020, it was confirmed that:
  4. ‘The landlord is entitled to restrict contact with its tenants if their contact is considered to be unreasonably persistent and/or unreasonable … The difficulties you have reported would not mean that the landlord was required to end the SPOC arrangement, but rather that the landlord should ensure that the arrangement functions correctly going forward’.
  5. This aspect of the complaint is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This investigation will consider the conduct of the SPOC since 24 January 2020, which was the date of the landlord’s stage 2 response to the previous complaint.

Background

  1. The resident’s correspondence has been filtered through an SPOC since March 2018. This arrangement was put in place to manage the resident’s high volume of emails and to co-ordinate responses. The resident has objected to the use of an SPOC on a number of occasions. The order was reviewed in February and October 2019 and the landlord decided that it should remain in place, with its responses to the resident’s enquiries to be collated into a single weekly response, unless urgent. The landlord stated that the order would be reviewed every 6 months. The next review was due to take place in March 2020.

Summary of events

  1. The resident requested a fire risk-assessment of her block and was informed on 31 December 2019 of the works identified in the previous risk assessment undertaken in May 2019. The resident emailed her SPOC on 2 February 2020, querying whether the fire door was fire resistant or whether this would also be replaced along with her front door in June 2020. The resident’s SPOC responded on 3 February 2020 stating that her enquiry had been forwarded to its Housing Team.
  2. On 4 February 2020 the resident requested her landlord send a contractor to widen the holes in her kitchen cupboard to allow access for a smart meter to be installed. She noted that the hole was not currently big enough to remove the existing meter. The resident’s SPOC replied the same day, noting that her request would be passed to the Housing Team.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 5, 7 and 11 February 2020, stating that she wished to make a complaint about the decision to appoint her current SPOC and the service he had provided. She requested that a previous SPOC be re-appointed. The resident provided further details in the email of 11 February 2020. She complained that she had not received a response from the Housing Team to her enquiry of 2 February 2020. She also complained that she had not been provided with an appointment for the landlord’s contractor to attend to widen the hole in her kitchen cupboard. The resident expressed her frustration that the Repairs Team would not deal with her directly and requested compensation for the loss of the discount she would have received if the smart meter had been installed earlier.
  4. The landlord’s SPOC sent a response to the resident’s comments regarding the door replacement on 11 February 2020. It repeated the reasons it had previously given for replacing  her flat entrance door and the current estimated timescale. The resident responded on 12 February 2020, noting that the SPOC had not answered her question, which was about whether the communal fire escape door would also be replaced as well as her front door.
  5. On 12 February 2020 the resident clarified that the size of the holes in the kitchen cupboards were currently preventing access to the stopcock and screws for the water meter. The resident again stated that she was frustrated she had not received a response from her SPOC to the request for an appointment. She noted that if she was not able to rearrange the appointment for the smart meter to be fitted within 14 days she would have to reapply and wait months for another appointment.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the complaint by email on 12 February 2020 and provided the resident with a reference number. It stated that she could expect to receive a response within 15 working days. The resident sent further emails on 12, 13, 16 and 17 February 2020 about the conduct of her SPOC and the landlord’s handling of repairs appointments.
  7. On 18 February 2020 the SPOC responded with an update on the various issues raised. It noted that the resident’s request for a repair to broken plug sockets had been passed to its contractor. The SPOC provided advice on logging a door repair on its online system and confirmed that reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) and littering had been passed to the relevant team. The SPOC confirmed the complaint reference for the issues raised in the resident’s emails of 7 and 11 February 2020, noting that she would receive a response by 3 March 2020. The SPOC apologised that he had misunderstood the query regarding the fire door and noted that this and the request to have the holes in the kitchen cupboard widened was still with the landlord’s Housing Team.
  8. The landlord confirmed on 19 February 2020 that an appointment had been raised for 24 February 2020 to widen the hole in the resident’s kitchen cupboard. The landlord noted that on receipt of the resident’s email of 11 February 2020 it was not clear that access to the stopcock was blocked, and so it was now able to raise this as a routine repair. The resident was unhappy with the delay and believed the SPOC had given her false information that the Housing Team had not replied, as she had contacted another member of staff who confirmed they had already responded to the SPOC about this issue. She also complained that electricians had attended her property unannounced on 20 February 2020 to complete a repair to plug sockets that she had raised on 13 February 2020.
  9. Throughout March and April 2020 the resident sent multiple emails about the landlord’s handling of repairs and the lack of response to her complaint about her SPOC, which was due by 3 March 2020. The resident referred the complaint to this Service on 13 March 2020.The resident experienced issues with her boiler in March and April 2020, which are the subject of another formal complaint that has been referred to this Service. Further details of the resident’s correspondence with her SPOC regarding this issue are not included in this summary of events.
  10. On 17 April 2020 the landlord provided its weekly response to the resident on a number of issues, stating also that, ‘your request to raise a Stage 1 complaint regarding the expansion of the hole around your water meter would seem to already be part of [a previous] complaint. I have previously acknowledged that the response to this complaint has been delayed due to the Coronavirus measures and will seek to have this response sent to you in the next week’. The landlord also confirmed that it was refusing to log a complaint regarding the SPOC arrangement, as a previous complaint raising this issue had already been raised and closed, and investigated by the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO).
  11. In response to enquiries from this Service, the landlord provided an update on the status of the resident’s complaints on 20 April 2020. It confirmed, ‘we are currently up to date with all of [the resident’s] complaints and responses. As part of the SPOC we respond to her once a week’.
  12. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s refusal to respond to her complaints on 6 May 2020. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 May 2020. It noted that since 1 January 2020 the resident had raised 9 complaints. It acknowledged that some had been responded to ‘shortly after the due date’ due to a delay in receiving information from the relevant service area. Of the 3 complaints currently open on its system, 2 were within the due date and the landlord acknowledged that the complaint logged on 12 February 2020 was overdue. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was not upheld as, with the exception of 1 complaint, all complaints had been responded to within or shortly after the due date.
  13. The landlord provided a formal response on 16 June 2020 to the complaint logged on 12 February 2020. The letter stated that, ‘the purpose of the Stage 1 is to review the parts of the complaints and concerns that you are not satisfied with’. The resident was informed that, ‘the [landlord] will not be responding to further queries regarding these matters’ and provided the details of this Service for escalation if the complaint related to housing matters.
  14. The body of the complaint response noted that the complaint was about the resident’s dissatisfaction with the SPOC arrangement and the conduct of her SPOC, the delays in arranging an appointment to widen a hole in her kitchen cupboard to allow a smart meter to be fitted, the time taken to respond to a query about whether her door was fire resistant, failure to inform her of an appointment to replace some plug sockets and the time taken to fix a broken communal door. The landlord provided the following responses to each issue:
    1. The landlord had confirmed that the previous SPOC did not have the capacity and availability to respond to the resident’s correspondence, due to his current role. A manager from the Customer Experience Team had therefore been appointed as the resident’s SPOC and the landlord was confident that he was best placed to assist with enquiries and co-ordinate responses.
    2. In response to the resident’s complaint regarding the delay in raising a job to widen the holes to allow for a smart meter installation, the landlord repeated the response in its email of 19 February 2020 that this was not raised sooner as the landlord wasn’t aware that access to the stopcock was restricted.
    3. The landlord confirmed a response provided to the resident on 29 May 2020 that the door leading to the roof was not required to be a fire resisting door.
    4. The landlord noted the resident’s feedback that contractors had attended unannounced to replace plug sockets in her home and confirmed that it was continuously working to improve its service and would include feedback from her complaint in its training sessions.
  15. The landlord sent responses to 3 further complaints on 17 June 2020. These complaint responses addressed the resident’s concerns that she was unable to reach the SPOC assigned to her, her complaint that the landlord does not follow its complaints process by escalating appropriately and the general level of service provided by her past and present SPOCs. These complaints were not upheld. In summary, the landlord concluded that:
    1. It was satisfied that the SPOC had forwarded the relevant parts of a colleague’s response in his emails of 22 May 2020 and 26 May 2020. The landlord’s response of 16 June 2020 had considered the conduct of her SPOC and it reiterated that he had continued to raise complaints and urgent housing jobs as required. The landlord did not identify any issues that had been ignored.
    2. Previous complaint responses had addressed the issues raised regarding its complaints handling and the resident had been provided with a copy of its Complaints Policy.
    3. The service provided by SPOCs had been considered in previous complaints, including a complaint previously referred to this Service. The landlord’s position remained that the SPOC process was necessary to manage the resident’s correspondence and that issues were being raised and responded to appropriately.
  16. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint about her SPOC on 23 June 2020. She stated that its responses had not addressed all the delays caused by his poor communication. She also noted that the landlord had not apologised for the delay of 5 months in responding to her complaint.
  17. The resident contacted the landlord by email on 15 July 2020, stating that she had not had a response to her complaint of 11 February 2020. The landlord responded, noting, ‘we sent you the response by email on 16 June … We also sent a stage 2 response when you requested this under reference …’. The landlord apologised for any delay, with reference to the unprecedented circumstances created by the pandemic that had meant resources had to be focused on urgent services.
  18. The landlord has confirmed that it has provided stage 2 responses to all complaints responded to on 17 June 2020. It has not upheld the complaints and confirmed that the SPOC will remain in place, as the volume of correspondence from the resident ‘has not reduced … and our previous complaint responses have confirmed that all service requests and complaints have been responded to’.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord has explained that the current SPOC was appointed because the previous SPOC no longer had the capacity for the role. The resident was informed of the reason for this change and a Team Manager, someone of appropriate seniority, was appointed to the role. It is reasonable for the landlord to redistribute its staff according to business need and it will not always be possible to ensure that the same staff member continues in a role indefinitely. There was no service failure in the landlord’s decision to appoint a new SPOC to manage the resident’s correspondence.
  2. The resident has complained that her SPOC does not reply to her communications and that the overall service he provides is poor. Under the SPOC arrangements, the resident has been informed that the landlord will only respond to her communications once per week, unless urgent. The information provided to this investigation shows that the resident received responses from her SPOC on 3, 11, 12, 18 and 19 February 2020, to her enquiries regarding the works to her kitchen cupboard, the fire door replacement and to her requests to log complaints. The landlord therefore exceeded the service standards agreed by responding more frequently than once per week.
  3. There is no evidence that the SPOC failed to log any of the resident’s enquiries, concerns or complaints. The landlord forwarded the resident’s correspondence regarding repairs and improvements to the appropriate teams and confirmed to the resident that it had done so. Where the SPOC had misunderstood the resident’s enquiry regarding the fire door, it acknowledged this, apologised and provided the correct information. There is no evidence that urgent issues were ignored and routine repairs were completed within a reasonable time. Works to widen the holes in the cupboard were completed as arranged on 24 February 2020 and contractors attended to replace plug sockets as requested.
  4. From March 2020, the landlord’s ability to respond to complaints and to complete non-urgent repairs was affected by the coronavirus pandemic. This was confirmed to the resident in April 2020 in correspondence relating to the boiler repair. She was also informed that the response to her complaint of 12 February 2020 would be delayed. Despite the limitations on its resources, the SPOC continued to communicate with the resident to forward her enquiries to the appropriate teams, to progress any urgent repairs and to manage her expectations about how she may be affected by the impact of the virus on the landlord’s service.
  5. Works to allow Smart Meter installation
  6. When the resident first raised this issue with the landlord she did not mention that the current size of the hole was preventing her from accessing the stopcock. Works to alter existing fittings to accommodate an improvement by the resident would not fall within the landlord’s repairs obligations. They would be completed at the landlord’s discretion and may be recharged to the resident. On 3 February 2020 the SPOC confirmed that it had forwarded the resident’s request to the Housing Team.
  7. When the landlord became aware that the size of the holes was causing issues with access to the pipework, the SPOC acted promptly to raise a routine repair and arrange for the works to be completed within 3 working days. The landlord’s obligation to complete the works began at the date it became aware that this was a repairs issue, which was 19 February 2020. The landlord completed the works well within its target timescale of 20 days for routine repairs. There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repair.
  8. Complaints Handling
  9. The resident states that the landlord has failed to log complaints, to escalate them appropriately and to respond in a timely manner. The landlord’s Complaints Policy states that it will respond to complaints at stage 1 of its complaints process within 15 working days ‘unless there are exceptional circumstances’. Stage 1 complaints will be dealt with by the Service Manager within the team to which the complaint relates. Paragraph 3.2.5 of the Complaints Policy states that stage 2 complaints will be reviewed by the Customer Care Manager or Customer Service Team. If the landlord considers that its response will stay the same after a review, it may confirm a final decision at stage 1 and refer the complainant on to the LGO or to this Service as appropriate.
  10. No evidence has been provided to this Service to indicate that the landlord failed to log a complaint made by the resident. The landlord’s complaint response of 29 May 2020 confirmed the status of all the resident’s current complaints, noting that only 1 response had exceeded its target timescales and remained outstanding. This complaint received a stage 1 response on 16 June 2020, which was stated to be a final response, referring the resident to this Service.
  11. Whilst it is acknowledged that there were considerable delays in responding to complaints between March and June, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this was reasonable due to the impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s services. The landlord acted appropriately by diverting its limited resources to urgent service areas and the resident was not disadvantaged beyond the frustration and inconvenience of having to wait for a response.
  12. The landlord’s complaint responses acknowledged where minor failings had occurred, such as the failure to inform the resident of an appointment to replace plug sockets, and noted that this will be fed back in training sessions to improve future service. This was an appropriate response to this aspect of the complaint.
  13. The resident is concerned that her complaints have not been investigated by someone more senior from a different service area, however the landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms that stage 2 complaints will be reviewed by the Customer Care Manager. The landlord has therefore complied with the requirements of its policy in relation to the resident’s complaints. 
  14. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has done its best to acknowledge, investigate and respond to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner during a time of unprecedented challenge to its services, dedicating a proportionate amount of time to addressing the issues raised. In future, the landlord should look to manage the resident’s expectations about what will be raised as a complaint, as it need not log and respond to issues previously raised.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. No maladministration in the landlord’s appointment of the resident’s current SPOC or its response to her concerns regarding the service he provides;
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to widen a hole in her kitchen cupboard to accommodate a smart meter; and
    3. No maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s decision to change the resident’s SPOC was reasonable as it was entitled to redistribute staff in accordance with business need. The landlord appointed a manager to the role and his appointment was confirmed to the resident, giving reasons why the change was necessary. The SPOC has responded to the resident in line with the service agreement previously communicated to her and has sought to progress her enquiries, repairs and complaints in an appropriate and timely manner.
  2. Once the landlord became aware that the works to the holes in the kitchen cupboard were a repairs issue, it arranged and completed the repair well within its published timescales.
  3. The landlord has responded to the resident’s multiple complaints about the conduct of the SPOC, the works to her kitchen cupboard and its complaints handling, albeit with some delays. The landlord indicated in March 2020 that its services had been affected by the coronavirus pandemic and whilst it is acknowledged that the resident found the lack of response frustrating, the detriment caused to her was minor.