Woking Borough Council (202000175)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000175

Woking Borough Council

19 January 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 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. response to the resident’s request for repair works to the toilet at his property;
2. response to the resident’s request for an electric heater to be installed in the bathroom at his property;
3. response to the resident’s reports about poor mobile telephone signal at his property;
4. response to the resident’s request for a disabled parking space at his property;
5. response to the resident’s request that the landlord record all telephone calls;
6. response to the resident’s reports regarding the conduct of staff members of the landlord;
7. complaints handling, including its decision to limit the resident’s communication.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a secured tenant at the property of the landlord since 19 June 2019. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord employs a management company to carry out its day to day responsibilities on its behalf.
The landlord operates a three stage complaints policy. The policy notes the landlord will respond to a complaint within five working days and provide a response within six weeks. Complaints will only be considered at the third stage if a complainant can demonstrate a reasonable need for a further review.

Summary of events

The resident has advised this service that, shortly after he moved into the property, he arranged for the gas to be disconnected from the property. He has further advised that he has a phobia of gas and so does not use gas heating.
It is not disputed that shortly after the resident moved into the property, he was visited by the landlord’s ‘Housing Manager’. It is also not disputed that following this visit, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord regarding the conduct of the landlord’s Housing Manager during the visit. The resident also reported that his toilet at the property did not flush correctly. The resident also requested that the landlord install an electric heater at the property. This service has not been provided with copies of the resident’s initial complaint or his reports/request.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 1 August 2019. Regarding the resident’s complaint that its Housing Manager had been “unfriendly and rushed,” the landlord advised it had discussed the resident’s concerns with its Housing Manager and that it would “take on board your comments.” It further apologised that the resident had not received any follow up communication following the visit. Regarding the issues with the toilet, the landlord advised it had arranged for its repairs team to make an appointment to investigate it further. Regarding the resident’s request for an electric heater, the landlord advised the resident that he could install one at his own expense, but would need to formally request its permission, provide further information about the proposed heater, and arrange for professional installation.
The resident replied on 20 October 2019 and expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had advised him he must pay for the installation of an electric heater. Regarding the repairs to his toilet, the resident noted that a plumber had visited his property and subsequently advised him that he would “report his findings.” The resident further noted that the landlord had subsequently sent him “two ridiculous letters as to the reason why they can’t fix it.” This service has not been provided with either this correspondence or a report from the plumber. The resident also advised that he was experiencing poor mobile telephone signal at his property. He concluded with a request that the landlord “sort these problems out for me.” Throughout his communications, the resident refers to himself as a “disabled old aged pensioner.”
The landlord replied on 28 October 2019 and confirmed its position that the resident was welcome to install an electric heater at his expense. It further advised it could also reinstate the existing heating system for the resident. Regarding the repairs to the toilet, the landlord advised that it was “unable to find anything wrong with the function of your toilet at any stage. Parts have been replaced & tests carried out. As such we have exhausted all reasonable measures.” While this service has not been provided with copies of the landlord’s repair logs, it is not disputed that these actions took place. The landlord also provided contact details for the local authority’s Occupational Therapist service and offered to make a referral “regarding the matter of the toilet flush.” Regarding the mobile telephone signal at the resident’s property, the landlord advised it did not have any input into the telephone services and advised him to contact his service provider.
On 30 October 2019, the resident reported that his toilet flush was still not effective. He also requested that the landlord make arrangements for the Occupational Therapist service to contact him. On 31 October 2019, the landlord confirmed that it had made said arrangements. The resident subsequently contacted the landlord on 8 November 2019 and advised that “the OT are not interested and have refused to help me.” He subsequently requested that his complaint be escalated.
On 11 November 2019, the landlord provided a further stage one response. Regarding the complaint about the toilet, the landlord confirmed it had “replaced your toilet pan, carried out a dye test to ensure correct function, [and] referred you to an Occupational Therapist.” It subsequently advised that it had “done all that it reasonably could be expected to do to assist you in this matter. As such we will not be taking any further action. We would strongly suggest you consider this might be a medical matter & discuss it with your GP.”
Following the landlord’s stage one response, the resident requested an escalation to stage two, which the landlord confirmed on 20 November 2019. On 22 November 2019, the landlord provided its stage two response. Regarding the toilet, the landlord advised it had “gone beyond its remit in providing you with a new toilet. Our contractors have undertaken flush tests which confirm the flush is working properly.” It also noted it had referred the resident to an Occupational Therapist for support. It acknowledged that the Occupational Therapist service had “refused to help you” and advised the resident to complete that service’s complaints process. It concluded that “no further action would be taken regarding the toilet” and that any further correspondence regarding the toilet would be acknowledged, but no action would be taken.
Regarding the bathroom heating, the landlord advised that it had provided “appropriate heating” and that it “will not provide you with an electric heater.” It reiterated that it could reinstate the heating at the resident’s request and further reiterated it would provide permission for the resident to install an electric heater at his own expense. Regarding the mobile phone signal, the landlord reiterated it had “neither the remit nor responsibility and is not able to deal with any issues regarding phone signal.” It again advised the resident to take the issue up with his phone company. It reiterated there was nothing it could do to resolve this issue, and that any further correspondence would be acknowledged, but no action would be taken.
Following the landlord’s response, the resident requested a further escalation of his complaints. On 3 December 2019, the landlord advised that an escalation could not be requested “because the complainant does not like the result of the previous investigation.” It subsequently requested the resident “explain these reasons fully, setting out why you consider the previous complaint was not carried out properly.” The resident reiterated his request for an escalation on 11 December 2019, following which, the landlord advised on 23 December 2019 it would consider his request. On the same date, the resident reported he was continuing to have issues with his toilet flush.
On 30 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord by telephone and requested that it provide a “disabled parking bay, for himself, outside of his property.” On 31 January 2020, the resident advised he could not afford to pay for an electric heater and reiterated his request for a parking space and noted he had previously been refused “on the grounds that the road outside my property is private land.” This service has not been provided with evidence of the resident’s previous request and subsequent refusal.
On 14 February 2020, the landlord advised it would not be considering the resident’s complaint at stage three of its internal complaints process as “your complaint has been properly and thoroughly investigated and all points addressed.” It advised the resident could refer his complaint to this service if he remained dissatisfied. The resident subsequently expressed his dissatisfaction on 18 February 2020, and again by telephone on 19 February 2020, during which the landlord has advised the resident became “very angry” and it subsequently terminated the call. The resident made a further complaint on the same date that the landlord’s call handler had “purposely provoked me into losing my temper during our conversation on the phone.” He subsequently requested that all his calls should be recorded.
Following a number of further communications in which the resident reiterated his complaints and also provided photographic evidence of the issues with his toilet, the landlord agreed to meet with him to discuss it further. The parties met on 3 March 2020, during which the resident reiterated his complaints and advised the landlord he had a phobia of gas. Following this meeting, the landlord provided a final response on 25 March 2020. Regarding the resident’s complaint that the landlord’s call handler purposely provoked him, the landlord advised it had spoken with the staff member who denied this behaviour. The landlord advised it considered there was a difference between “difficult” conversations, and those where someone was provocative. Based on the experience of the author of the landlord’s report, it noted that the resident “may, on occasions, either misconstrue, or over-react, to what people say to you.”
Regarding the toilet flush, the landlord agreed that at its recent visit, the flush was not effective, and so it agreed that the toilet would be replaced. Given that the toilet was able to function after several flushes, the landlord noted it was not a “health issue” and so it would only be able to attend to the repair works following the COVID-19 situation returning to “normal.” It advised it would contact him to arrange the repairs at this time.
Regarding the resident’s request for an electric heater, the landlord reiterated that while it “appreciated that you do not like gas heating,” it had provided heating that is an “acceptable form of heating and is suitable for your property” and so would not be installing an electric heater. Regarding the request for a parking space, the landlord advised that the parking was unallocated which would not be changed. It advised that to do so would be “unfair on other residents and would interfere with the rights of some under their shared ownership leases.” It further noted that “it is also clear that you are able to get from your car, when parked, to your property.” Regarding the mobile telephone signal, it reiterated that it was not responsible for this and that the resident should speak with his network provider. Regarding the resident’s request that telephone calls be recorded, the landlord advised that “we have chosen not to do so and do not intend to change this approach.” Finally, it advised that “this email is our final response on the issues” and it would not “discuss matters with you further.”
On the same date, the resident replied and expressed his dissatisfaction with the final response. On 26 March 2020, the resident made a further complaint about the author of the landlord’s final response and advised he felt “bullied and belittled by this person.” The landlord replied on the same date and advised that it considered the complaint against its staff member to be a “related matter” to the complaints dealt with in the response and so it would “not be taking any action in respect of it.” It subsequently advised the resident it could refer this complaint to this service.
Following this, the resident continued to be in regular contact with the landlord over the period between March and December 2020 where he repeated his complaints, including the complaint against the landlord’s staff member on a number of occasions. The resident also contacted the landlord regularly regarding other issues such as his options to bid on new accommodation. The landlord continued to respond to the resident’s communications about issues other than the complaints but did not respond to or acknowledge communications which reiterated the resident’s complaints.
On 26 June 2020, the resident made an additional complaint about another staff member of the landlord, in which he complained that the staff member had been rude to him during a telephone call. It is not evident from the complaint when the telephone call occurred. The resident subsequently requested an update regarding this complaint on 10 July 2020 and made a duplicate complaint through the landlord’s online complaints system on 31 July 2020. After repeated communications reiterating his complaints, including the most recent complaint against the landlord’s staff member, the landlord responded on 1 September 2020. It advised that “the concerns you raised were filed but not actioned whilst your wider complaint against [the landlord] was being investigated.” It further advised that the complaint had been forwarded to this service, and “should the Ombudsman wish for this now historic matter to be recorded and investigated separately we will of course do so.”
Following several other emails reiterating his previous complaints, on 13 September 2020, the resident noted that his most recent complaint was “not dealt with properly” and that he had “no knowledge that my complaint had been deliberately discarded.” On 19 September 2020, the resident advised he wished for this complaint to be referred to this service.
On 21 September 2020, the landlord advised its maintenance team would contact the resident to arrange the repairs. The resident confirmed on 22 September 2020 that the repairs had subsequently been arranged.
Throughout August and September 2020, the resident sent the landlord up to six emails each day, many of which reiterated the resident’s complaints and also contained abusive language, e.g. “if he dies, I will dance on his grave.” On 23 September 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to advise that it considered the “extent, and manner, of your contact with the Council is unreasonable.” It subsequently advised it was limiting his contact to a single staff member, by email only.
The resident continued to contact the landlord at the same frequency and reiterated his complaints, including his most recent complaint against the landlord’s staff member. On 23 October 2020, the landlord advised it would formally respond regarding his most recent complaint. The resident subsequently requested an update on this response on 11 November 2020, and again on 18 November 2020. On 20 November 2020, the landlord advised that its complaints manager had been requested to respond, but that as he “has advised previously that he considers it a historic complaint, which may be why he has not responded. I would suggest you take this up with him.”

Assessment and findings

Repair works to the toilet

It is not evident that the landlord operates a repairs policy with published timeframes to complete repairs. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect reports of required repair works to be addressed within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord’s initial response was dated 1 August 2019, in which it agreed to arrange repairs to the toilet. The amount of time that elapsed between the resident’s initial report and the response cannot be determined by the evidence provided to this service, however, the Ombudsman notes that the resident has not made any complaints regarding a delay to the landlord’s response.
Following the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction of the flush on his toilet on 20 October 2019, the landlord appropriately replied and outlined the steps it had taken. Given it had replaced the toilet parts and its tests indicated the toilet functioned correctly, it was reasonable for it to advise there was no further action it could take. Additionally, given the resident’s reports that he is a “disabled old aged pensioner,” it was also appropriate that the landlord offered to arrange for the resident to contact its Occupational Therapist service to discuss if there was any assistance it could offer with regards to using the toilet effectively.
Following the resident’s reports that he was still experiencing issues with his toilet flush and that the Occupational Therapist service had been unable to provide assistance, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed the complaint again in a formal response, where it once again set out the steps it had taken and concluded its evidence was that the toilet functioned correctly. It reiterated this position in its stage two response, and appropriately advised the resident he could dispute the Occupational Therapist service’s decision through their complaints process.
The Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to repeatedly investigate the same issues where it has already made its position clear. Following its stage two response, it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise that it would not be opening further complaints regarding the toilet flush. In addition to its advice in its stage two response, it was appropriate that the landlord continued to advise the resident he could escalate his complaint to this service.
Following its visit on 3 March 2020, the landlord appropriately advised in its final response on 25 March 2020 that it agreed the toilet flush was weak, and that it would arrange for further repairs. Given the COVID-19 restrictions that were in place at this time and that the toilet flush functioned after several flushes, it was reasonable that it advised works would be delayed until after the restrictions had ended. The landlord has advised this service that the repairs to the toilet have now been completed and it has not received any further complaints on this issue from the resident.

Electric heater

Landlords have an obligation to provide an installation for space heating. The Ombudsman considers that a gas heater is an appropriate installation that fulfils this obligation. It is not disputed that such a heater is installed at the resident’s property, which the resident has voluntarily deactivated.
Following the resident’s request that it install an electric heater in his bathroom, the landlord appropriately advised it would grant permission for the resident to professionally install one at his expense. It further appropriately offered to reinstate the existing heater. Following the resident’s repeated requests that it provide him with an electric heater, it was reasonable that the landlord advised him in its stage two response that it had provided “appropriate heating” and that it made clear its position that it “will not provide you with an electric heater.”
Given the resident’s continued repeated requests for an electric heater, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed them again in its final response. It was reasonable that it reiterated its position that it had provided heating that is an “acceptable form of heating and is suitable for your property” and so would not be installing an electric heater. It was also appropriate that it acknowledged the resident’s concerns about gas and again reiterated that it would grant its permission for the resident to install an electric heater at his own expense.
Whilst the Ombudsman notes the resident’s reasons for requesting an electric heater rather than using the existing gas heating, the landlord was under no obligation to provide this. This is because it had met its legal obligation to provide heating to the property and was under no obligation to change this. However, it took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns by explaining that it would grant permission for him to install an electric heater.

Mobile telephone signal

A landlord is not responsible for the mobile telephone signal at a property. Following the resident’s reports of poor signal on 20 October 2019, it was therefore reasonable that the landlord advised in its stage one response on 28 October 2019 that it was not responsible, and it was appropriate that it signposted the resident to his network provider for further assistance.
Following the resident’s repeated complaints about this issue, it was appropriate that the landlord repeated its position in its stage two and final responses. As with above, it was also reasonable that, having made its position clear, it advised the resident it would no longer be responding to repeated complaints.

Disabled parking space

The resident has noted he made a previous request for a disabled parking space, which was subsequently refused, however, it is not evident whether this request was made to his local authority in its role as his landlord. While this complaint had not been raised prior to the landlord’s stage one response, it was appropriate that the landlord set out its position in its final response in order to not over–complicate its responses to the resident and to make its position clear at the earliest opportunity.
It is not evident that the resident provided the landlord with any supporting evidence to demonstrate a need for a disabled parking space. As the resident has alluded to the continued use of his vehicle in his communications, it is evident that the resident is able to access his vehicle with the current arrangement, as referred to in the landlord’s final response, however the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have made a reasonable investigation in order to reach such a decision. While it may have had access to information from the resident’s previous refused application, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to refer to any supporting evidence in a formal response.
Given, however, that the landlord has advised that the parking is unallocated, and to allocate a parking space would potentially be in breach of the rights of the leaseholders on the estate, it was reasonable for it to have advised that it would be unable to allocate the resident a parking space, as it would not have the right to amend the leases of the leaseholders.

Recording telephone calls

The Ombudsman considers that it is for the landlord to consider whether to implement a system of recording telephone calls or not. Following the resident’s requests that it do so, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise in its final response that it would not be implementing such a system.

Conduct of landlord’s staff members

Following the resident’s initial reports about the conduct of the landlord’s Housing Manager, the landlord responded appropriately in its stage one response that it would take “take on board your comments” and discuss them with the Housing Manager. While it is not evident that the landlord committed to following this visit up with a written communication, it was also appropriate that the landlord recognised that the resident would have appreciated one and that it apologised that the resident had not received one.
The Ombudsman considers that it is essential for effective communication and dispute resolution that all parties treat each other with respect and use respectful language. The Ombudsman also considers it reasonable for a landlord to terminate a call when a party to that call is behaving in an unreasonable manner. It is not evident that the landlord deliberately provoked the resident during his call with the landlord on 19 February 2020, and it was reasonable for the landlord to warn him that it would terminate the call if the resident continued to behave in an unreasonable manner, and for it to subsequently terminate the call. The landlord carried out an appropriate investigation into this complaint by interviewing the call handler and it was appropriate for it to explain the difference between “difficult” conversations, and those where someone was provocative. It was also reasonable for the landlord to rely on its past experiences with the resident as part of its investigation.
Following the resident’s further complaint about the conduct of the author of the landlord’s final response, the landlord advised it considered this complaint to be a “related matter” to the complaints dealt with in the response and as such it would “not be taking any action in respect of it.” While the initial complaints did not relate to the conduct of the author of the response, it is evident that this complaint was in relation to the response itself, rather than a separate incident involving the author. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to open a new complaint, and it was appropriate for it to signpost the resident to this service.
On 26 June 2020, the resident made an additional complaint about another staff member of the landlord, in which he complained that the staff member had been rude to him during a telephone call. It is not evident from the complaint when the telephone call occurred (the timings and communication of the landlord’s response to this complaint will be discussed further in paragraph 49). The landlord initially advised that it had “filed” the resident’s complaints but had not taken action while this service’s investigation was ongoing. The landlord had previously advised the resident that it would “acknowledge” any complaints it considered to be duplicates, and so to have not done so on this occasion caused the resident confusion as to how it was treating his complaint. The landlord further advised that should this service request it investigate the complaint, it would do so, however, given that the complaint was regarding the telephone manner of a staff member, it is not evident on what basis the landlord considered this to be connected to the initial complaints.
The landlord later agreed on 23 October 2020, following the resident’s reiterated complaints, to provide a response to the resident’s complaint. It subsequently advised, however, that the staff member responsible for issuing the response had previously advised “that he considers it a historic complaint, which may be why he has not responded.” This has added to the confusion for the resident as to whether to expect a response, having previously been promised one, and amounts to service failure by the landlord for which an amount of compensation is appropriate. It is not evident that the landlord operates a compensation policy and so the Ombudsman considers an amount of £25 to be appropriate.

Complaints handling

The Ombudsman understands that landlords have a finite amount of resources and that receiving and replying to excessive communications can limit the effectiveness of its service to all residents. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to request that the resident limit his further communications to a single point of contact and to advise it would only respond to issues other than the resident’s previous complaints. While it is evident that the landlord continued to be in regular communication with the resident, the Ombudsman would expect in such circumstances that the landlord would give a timeframe for how long the restriction would last, or when it would be reviewed. Such a restriction should also be accompanied by an explanation of how a resident could appeal. The landlord has confirmed to this service that, while it is planning to amend its procedures to ensure this information is included in the future, it did not provide this information to the resident when advising it was limiting his communication.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will acknowledge a complaint within five working days and issue a response within six weeks. The landlord additionally noted that, while it may no longer open a duplicate complaint, it would continue to acknowledge any complaints by the resident. Following the resident’s initial complaint on 26 June 2020 regarding the landlord’s staff member, the landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. The resident subsequently requested an update regarding this complaint on 10 July 2020 and made a duplicate complaint through the landlord’s online complaints system on 31 July 2020 before the landlord finally acknowledged the complaint on 1 September 2020. As the landlord had advised it would continue to acknowledge the resident’s complaints, despite the fact it considered these to be connected to the initial complaints, the landlord significantly deviated from the timeframes in its internal complaints procedure, causing confusion and distress to the resident about how his complaint was being handled.
Additionally, having agreed to provide a response, the landlord subsequently advised following repeated requests for an update that the person tasked with responding to the complaint may consider it part of the initial complaints and so not issue a response. It further advised the resident to contact this person directly. Given that the landlord had committed to a response, and that it had limited the resident’s communication to a single person (who was not the person tasked with responding to the complaint), the conflicting nature of the landlord’s communications would have caused further confusion and distress to the resident.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord advised it would formally respond regarding his most recent complaint, however, it did not give a timeframe for when it would respond, leading to the resident to request updates on 11 November 2020, and again on 18 November 2020.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord advised it would formally respond regarding his most recent complaint. The resident subsequently requested an update on this response on 11 November 2020, and again on 18 November 2020. On 20 November 2020, the landlord advised that its complaints manager had been requested to respond, but that as he “has advised previously that he considers it a historic complaint, which may be why he has not responded. I would suggest you take this up with him.”
The significant departure from the landlord’s timeframes for a response, along with the conflicting communications regarding providing a formal response and who the resident should contact amount to a service failure by the landlord for which an amount of compensation is appropriate. The Ombudsman considers an amount of £25 to be appropriate in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request for repair works to the toilet at his property;
2. request for an electric heater to be installed in the bathroom at his property;
3. reports about poor mobile telephone signal at his property;
4. request for a disabled parking space at his property;
5. request that the landlord record all telephone calls.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s:
1. reports regarding the conduct of staff members of the landlord;
2. complaints handling, including its decision to limit the resident’s communication.

Reasons