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

Kingston upon Thames Council (202003379)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003379

Kingston upon Thames Council

4 February 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The resident complains that the landlord failed to handle her complaints in accordance with its complaints procedure in that:
  • it failed to reply to her complaints; and
  • it failed to escalate her complaints for a Stage 2 review to an appropriate officer.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. Previous complaints: The resident complains that the landlord has failed to reply to her previous complaints. She has previously referred those complaints to the Ombudsman and cites those cases as being ‘just a few examples’ of the landlord’s failure to reply to her complaints. The resident has also previously complained to the Ombudsman that those complaints had not been appropriately escalated by the landlord for review. 
  2. Complaints from the resident on these issues have been previously considered and determined by the Ombudsman under case reference numbers: 201916059; 202000332; and 201914481.
  3. A further complaint – case reference number 202002989 – also complains of a failure by the landlord to register a matter as a complaint and will be determined separately by the Ombudsman in due course.
  4. With regard to those cases involving a complaint that the landlord failed reasonably to reply to a complaint, the Ombudsman has previously made a number of findings. These have ranged from findings of no maladministration to findings of service failure, and orders for remedy, when it has identified a failure by the landlord to register and progress a complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure, delayed responses and failing to advise the resident of her right to escalation.
  5. With respect to the resident’s complaint of a general failure to escalate her complaints to an appropriately senior or independent officer, this issue was previously considered by the Ombudsman under case reference number 202000332. In that case the Ombudsman found that:

‘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.’

  1. So while the substance of the resident’s current complaint has already been previously considered by the Ombudsman, with respect to the landlord’s handling of her current complaint, the Ombudsman notes that it took positive steps to address her concerns. In response to her complaint on 6 May 2020 about a general failure to reply to her complaints, the landlord reviewed the nine formal complaints she had raised so far that year and of these found only one in which a response was overdue, and appropriately undertook to chase the reply.
  2. With regard to any failure to escalate her complaints to a sufficiently senior or independent officer for review, the landlord explained that the review of her current complaint (about a failure to reply) had been conducted by its customer experience manager and that this manager was appropriately senior to the manager who had completed the Stage 1 response.
  3. The Ombudsman is aware the resident does not consider the senior manager of the customer service team to have been sufficiently independent or objective. However, the Ombudsman notes that paragraph 3.2.5 of the landlord’s Complaints Policy states:

‘If a complaint is escalated to Stage Two, it will be allocated and acknowledged by the Customer Service Team to a senior manager within the service area or if appropriate, to an independent senior manager within the relevant service area who will carry out a further review of the complaint.’

  1. There was therefore no requirement for the complaint to be dealt with outside the customer service team, only that it be reviewed by a manager within the relevant service area; which in this instance was the customer service team and that is what happened. As to objectivity, the landlord’s response was based on the evidence of the resident’s previous complaints and the outcome of those complaints. That was an approach which does not appear to the Ombudsman to have been lacking in objectivity. 
  2. The Ombudsman notes the fact that the landlord chose not to escalate this complaint for a Stage 2 review. Again, the Ombudsman considers that decision was not the result of a lack of objectivity on the part of the landlord. Rather the Ombudsman sees it to have been a pragmatic and appropriate decision by the landlord made in accordance with its Complaints Policy and one which enabled the complaint about escalation to be considered concurrently by the Ombudsman alongside the resident’s complaint about a failure to reply.
  3. It is apparent from the resident’s general complaint that she considers her previous complaints highlight a problem of a systemic nature in the landlord’s general complaint handling. The Ombudsman is well placed to identify systemic failings as it has oversight of a large number of complaints across many issues. However, a resident’s personal experience of the specific responses she has received to her particular complaints is not evidence in itself of a wider systemic failure of a landlord.

Reasons

  1. Previous complaints: The resident considers her previous complaints concerning the landlord’s complaint handling, which included complaints of a failure to reply and failure to appropriately escalate are evidence in support of her current, more general complaint. However, as explained above, the Ombudsman has previously considered complaints about these issues.
  2. 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. Consequently, the substance of those previous complaints does not fall within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for further consideration.
  3. Current complaint: This case concerns a complaint brought to the landlord about how it handled the resident’s previous complaints. Whilst it is positive that the landlord addressed this as a separate complaint and provided a response, the Ombudsman has decided that it is not in this Service’s jurisdiction to consider any further.  This is because, as part of our investigation into the cases listed above we considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Therefore, we have already assessed its handling of these complaints in our previous investigations, and in line with paragraph 39(o) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion seek to raise matters which the Ombudsman has previously decided upon.