New Forest District Council (202100893)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100893

New Forest District Council

9 March 2023

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. This complaint is about the landlord’s decision to extend the resident’s ‘unreasonable and persistent complainant’ status from March 2020.

Background and summary of events

Policy Framework

2. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides that certain complainants will be considered as persistent and unreasonable, due to the way they have pursued their complaints. It lists unreasonable behaviour in making complaints as including:
   1. Making groundless complaints about employees and demanding they are replaced.
   2. Adopting a ‘scattergun’ approach i.e. either submitting a complaint to a number of different people at the Council (such as the service involved, the Information Compliance & Complaints Officer, Chief Executive, Leader, or Chairman) or pursuing a complaint with the Council while asking others (MPs, Local Government Ombudsman, Police, Courts etc.) to do the same.
   3. Making excessive demands on the time and resources of employees – specifically pursuing a campaign against the Council and phoning or emailing frequently, or consistently writing letters.
   4. Submitting repeat complaints on the same topic after the complaints process has been completed insisting there are ‘new’ complaints.
   5. Refusing to accept the decision – repeatedly arguing the point and complaining about the decision.
   6. Pursuing unreasonable complaints that provide no, or inadequate, details to substantiate the allegation of wrongdoing/error on the part of the Council.
3. The Complaint policy also states that when the decision has been made, that a resident has persistent and unreasonable complainant status, the decision will be reviewed six monthly, they will be communicated with, the policy’s appointed Executive Officer. This officer will write to the resident with all review decisions, reasons for the decision, and any restrictions for contact deemed necessary.

Summary

4. For context, in July 2018, the landlord notified the resident that he had been given the status as an ‘unreasonable complainant’. In August 2018, the landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact for any future complaints. He was advised that the landlord “would file, but no longer respond to” any further complaints on the issues it had already dealt with.
5. On 13 April 2021, the resident contacted this service to complain about the unreasonable and persistent complainant status, he had been given by the landlord, which restricted his access to make complaints.
6. The resident also informed this service that he was advised his case would be reviewed after six months, but the unreasonable and persistent complainant status was not lifted until 18 March 2021.
7. This service asked the landlord to open a new complaint for the resident.
8. The landlord responded on 4 May 2021, advising that it had written to the resident on 18 March 2021, following a six-month review and explained the reasons why it had decided to remove the resident’s restricted status. The landlord also advised that the status had been reviewed at six monthly intervals. With its response the landlord provided copies of the letters sent to the resident following each review for the period in question.
9. In summary:
   1. 18 March 2020, the landlord extended the persistent and unreasonable complaint status: for pursuing complaints against the landlord in an unreasonable manner, taking a scattergun approach raising the same complaints with the council, which were with external adjudication services instead of waiting for the decision, writing to other officers, MPs and Councillors. Use of communication considered derogatory and unpleasant in tone and content, taking up resources that were disproportionate and unreasonable.
   2. 18 September 2020, the landlord extended the persistent and unreasonable complaint status: for contacting the planning enforcement team and failing to use the single point of contact, use of communication considered derogatory and unpleasant in tone and content, taking up resources that were disproportionate and unreasonable.
   3. 18 March 2021, the landlord removed the persistent and unreasonable complaint status: as there had been no repeat or continuation on the part of the resident of pursuing unreasonable correspondence both in tone and quantity.
10. On 10 June 2021, the resident submitted a Subject Access Request (SAR) to be provided with copies of the information the landlord held about them. On receipt of this information the resident raised a complaint to this service and the landlord, that the unreasonable complainant status should have been removed in March 2020 because he did not consider the records showed his communication to be derogatory or abusive.
11. The landlord investigated the complaint and sent the resident a final complaint response 10 September 2021. The response said that the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint because:
    1. It had completed regular reviews on the resident’s complainant status in line with its policy framework.
    2. The reasons for the landlords’ decisions of 18 March 2020 and 18 September 2020, to extend the unreasonable complainant status, had been fully explained in each letter.

Assessment

Scope

12. When the resident contacted this service part of his complaint was about being given the unreasonable and persistent complainant status by the landlord, and the restricted access that placed on him. This element will not form part of this investigation, as this matter was previously considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) in April 2020. The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which seek to raise matters which any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.
13. This investigation will focus on the resident’s complaint that the landlord should not have extended the status of unreasonable and persistent complainant, beyond 18 March 2020.

Assessment

14. The resident advised this service that there should have been six monthly reviews of his unreasonable complainant status, from March 2020, but the status was not lifted for a year until March 2021. Evidence provided by the landlord confirmed that it had appropriately carried out the six monthly reviews of the resident’s status, in accordance with the process set out in its complaints policy. In September 2020 the decision was made to extend the unreasonable complaint status and in March 2021 the status was lifted.
15. There was evidence in the six months prior to the review decision of 18 March 2020, that the resident had contacted various different officers in the council, regarding the same matters, was also in contact with the LGSCO, made references to the council and individual staff being “corrupt”, “vindictive” and “conspiring to cover matters up”. This met the landlord’s criteria for unreasonable and persistent complainant in its complaints policy, so it was appropriate that the landlord extended the residents status at the time.
16. There was evidence in the six months prior to the review decision of 18 September 2020 that the resident contacted the landlords planning enforcement team, on several occasions, and not the point of contact, allocated to him. There is also further correspondence from the resident which makes references that the landlord’s senior management “are riddled with corruption and self-interest” and questioning its ability “to provide an honest reply”. This met the landlord’s criteria for unreasonable and persistent complainant in its complaints policy, so it was appropriate that the landlord extended the resident’s complainant status.
17. Following each review, the landlord appropriately sent out letters to inform the resident of the outcome. This service has had sight of the review letters, and can confirm that for each review, a letter was sent out which appropriately provided a clear determination and a reasonable explanation to support the decision in line with its complaints policy.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to extend the resident’s unreasonable complainant status in March 2020

Reasons

19.  The evidence supports, that in making its decision, the landlord adhered to its complaints policy in respect of persistent and unreasonable complainants. It completed the six-monthly reviews required. It notified the resident each time of the outcome and provided a reasonable explanation of the reasons for each determination, which aligned with the landlord’s policy guidelines.