Kingston upon Thames Council (202010080)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010080

Kingston upon Thames Council

13 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Original decision to restrict the resident’s access to a single point of contact.
2. Decision in December 2020 to retain the single point of contact.
3. Handling of a communal repair.

Jurisdiction

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.
The resident has expressed dissatisfaction with a single point of contact being in place. Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that: “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
The Ombudsman previously investigated the landlord’s decision to restrict contact in August 2018 (201710007) as well as an earlier decision to keep that arrangement in place in May 2019 (201802946). Therefore, this investigation will not consider the landlord’s original decision to restrict its contact with the resident. It will, however, consider the landlord’s decision to retain that arrangement as well as the handling of the communal repair.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord. The property is a two‑bedroom maisonette in a block. The landlord is a local authority. It has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident. Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining the outside of the property and any communal areas.
The resident is subject to a restriction on her contact with the landlord; she has been required to communicate only with a specific named member of staff, a single point of contact.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. The landlord aims to response at both stages within 15 working days.
The landlord’s managing unreasonable customer conduct policy defines unreasonable conduct as any behaviour by a customer, because of its nature or frequency, which raises substantial health, safety, resource or equity issues for the landlord.
The policy lists points to assist the landlord assess if a customer’s behaviour has become unreasonable. These points include assessing if the customer’s behaviour or demands on time and resources are proportionate to the matter. The options for the landlord’s action include placing limits on the number and duration of contacts with staff per week or month; limiting the complainant to one medium of contact (telephone, letter, email etc); and/or requiring the complainant to communicate only with one named member of staff. The complainant has a right to ask for a review of such a decision.

Summary of events

On 3 October 2020 the resident reported that, when it rained, a pool of water formed outside her front door. She provided a photo of this.
On 5 October 2020 the single point of contact told the resident that he had raised this issue with the landlord’s contractor (the contractor) and would update her once a date and time had been confirmed. He did not do so.
On 14 October 2020 the landlord’s contractor attended the block and inspected the area outside the resident’s flat. They noted that there were no water marks stain or water present at floor level. They noted that paint on the ceiling was peeling due to outside air condensing on the paint but no leak had been found at low level.
On 15 October 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about not being told when the contractor was attending to inspect the water puddling outside her front door that she had reported on 3 October 2020.
On 19 October 2020 the landlord responded at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. The main points were:
1. It had seen that the single point of contact had emailed the resident on 5 October 2020 to confirm that this matter had been raised with the contractor and that she would be updated when it had confirmed the date and time this visit was scheduled for.
2. As this was a communal job, scheduling was sometimes not confirmed until nearer the time because residents were not required to be present to allow entry to the property.
3. The single point of contact received confirmation from the contractor on 9 October 2020 that the inspection would take place on 14 October 2020. Unfortunately, that information was not passed on to the resident at the time.
4. The landlord apologised for that oversight and any inconvenience it might have caused.
5. It gave details of the outcome of the inspection of 14 October 2020 (paragraph 12). It added that, as no evidence of a water leak had been found, no further action would be taken by the contractor
The landlord partially upheld the complaint because an appointment was scheduled and attended but the single point of contact did not advise of the date and time in advance as he said he would. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint.
Later that day, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said that having a single point of contact was the equivalent of having a complete ban on contact as he was never available when she called him. She said that, as her complaint about the single point of contact had been partially upheld, he should be removed.
The resident provided further evidence of the leak and on 20 October 2020 the single point of contact contacted the contractor who suggested a surveyor was sent to the site. The single point of contact provided the contractor with the photo that the resident had provided at that point too. The contractor responded saying that it would be hard to determine the cause of the leak until it rained, even with a photo.
On 21 October 2020 the resident added to her complaint. She said that the single point of contact did not forward the photo she had sent of the puddle outside her door to the contractor or asked them to knock on her door to discuss it. She said that the single point of contact should be removed.
On 29 October 2020 the single point of contact told the resident that a request had been raised for a surveyor to visit the site and inspect for the leak. It explained they were not yet able to advise a date for this inspection to take place due to several issues increasing this team’s workload. He apologised for any inconvenience caused and said he would update the resident once he had any information about the visit.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord noted that it would only be worthwhile visiting the site during rain or there would be nothing to see.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of its final complaints procedure. Its main points were:
1. The delay by the single point of contact in notifying the resident of the contractor’s visit on 14 October 2020 was an oversight that had already been acknowledged and apologised for in the stage one complaint response.
2. This did not necessitate changing the single point of contact process as the vast majority of the resident’s other complaints and emails were responded to within appropriate timescales and the volume of her contact was still at a level that made the single point of contact process necessary.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint as the resident was not advised of the date and time of the contractor’s visit in advance, as she was advised she would be. A follow up visit by a surveyor had been requested and the single point of contact would advise her when this has been scheduled. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
Work was subsequently carried out to the balcony and on 11 March 2021 the repair was completed which resolved the issue of the leak outside the resident’s front door. The resident subsequently made a complaint about the delay in investigating and repairing the problem that had led to the leak. On 29 January 2021 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. The evidence provided does not show that the resident escalated this matter and therefore, as she has not completed the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman has not therefore investigated any delay in completing the repair.
The landlord reviewed the single point of contact arrangement on 10 December 2020 noting that the resident had had significant volumes of emails and complaints made by her that continued to raise similar complaints. It stated that, since 1 April 2020, the resident had raised 28 stage one complaints and had sent in excess of 200 emails about various issues. The landlord decided that the single point of contact should remain in place for a further six months.
On 12 January 2021 the landlord reviewed that decision but did not change it. It explained in its decision to the resident that her emails were often sent to multiple members of staff which took a considerable and disproportionate amount of resources to respond to. It explained that the single point of contact would ensure that her concerns and issues were dealt with by a single person who had a chronology of the contact that she had with it would make sure that she did not receive multiple responses from different officers regarding the same issue.
The landlord said the single point of contact was not a contact ban; it was in regular communication with her which was evidenced by over 200 emails that it had sent her in the previous sent 12 months. It added how she could contact it in an emergency. The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman saying she had the right to contact the landlord if she disagreed with that decision.

Assessment and findings

Single Point of Contact

The landlord’s decision in December 2020 to keep the single point of contact for housing issues for the resident was appropriate because it was in line with its policy (paragraphs 8 and 9) and in light of the amount of contact the landlord said she had had with it in the period from 1 April 2020 (paragraph 24), which the resident has not disputed. This amount of correspondence would evidently have a substantial impact on the work of the landlord and may result in a disadvantage to other residents. Accordingly, it was reasonable for the landlord to take steps to mitigate the resident’s behaviour by imposing a single point of contact.
We have not identified any service failure by the landlord in its decision in December 2020 to retain the single point of contact.

Handling of a communal repair in the property.

In its stage one complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the single point of contact should have informed the resident of when the contractor was visiting the site to inspect for a leak (paragraphs 14.c). It apologised for that oversight.
The Ombudsman considers that that an apology was proportionate action to put matters right here. The impact on the resident was minimal as she could not tell the contractor what was causing the leak. While she could have described the leak, even when the contractor received the photo of the puddle, they noted that it would be difficult to establish the cause even with a photo (paragraph 17); and later noted that they required an inspection during rain to investigate the matter fully (paragraph 20).
The Ombudsman considers that the apology given by the landlord resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision in December 2020 to retain the single point of contact.
In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint with respect to its handling of a communal repair.

Reasons

The landlord’s decision to keep a single point of contact was appropriate given the amount of contact from the resident from April 2020 and was in line with its policy.
The landlord apologised for its oversight in not telling the resident about the date and time of the visit by the contractors on 14 October 2020. That was a proportionate way to put matters right.