Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited (202225464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225464

Castles & Coasts Housing Association Limited

1 October 2024

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 response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about winter gritting.
2. The related complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom flat on an estate of 26 properties described as a scheme for the elderly.
The landlord has recorded no specific vulnerabilities for the resident, however in June 2022 he notified the landlord that he was almost 80 and had physical and mental disability as well as PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).
The resident informed the landlord in January 2021 that residents on the estate were not capable of spreading grit when required and that it should have an emergency plan for the cold weather. In its response, the landlord stated that it had a dedicated gritting policy to provide gritting boxes, and residents’ groups had previously decided not to increase service charges to pay for gritting. The landlord later reviewed the gritting policy and confirmed that it was satisfied that the measures in place were appropriate.
The landlord logged a stage 1 complaint and issued a response on 26 August 2021, stating that it was seeking quotes for gritting and would see if residents wished to pay for this service. The landlord consulted with residents and said it would run a trial to respond to requests for gritting starting in October 2022. The resident said that this should not be charged to residents as it was not maintenance.
The resident escalated his complaint on 16 January 2023 and the landlord’s final response was issued on 13 February 2023 by which time it had instigated its Unacceptable Behaviour and Unreasonable Demands policy due to the frequency and persistence of the resident’s communication on this subject. It said that in line with its gritting policy, a gritting service was not offered but gritting bins were provided. It said consultation with residents concluded the majority did not want to pay for a gritting service.
The resident feels the landlord acted with maladministration when addressing complaints about winter gritting at the development and wants it to review its decision taking proper account of relevant matters.

Assessment and findings

Gritting

The landlord’s gritting policy effective May 2014, prior to the resident’s complaint, said that in consultation with a resident’s panel in 2013, a review of practical issues had decided that the landlord would provide grit bins, and staff would clear and grit entrances to sheltered schemes and offices. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s estate is not an independent living scheme or sheltered accommodation, although it was designed for retirees.
Section 5 says “Grit boxes and grit will be provided on all schemes and where residents are able to do so and it is safe, they will be encouraged to participate and grit areas leading to their front doors etc. This point has been agreed by the Residents Panel previously. Scheme Officers/Resident Managers should check weekly that there is an adequate supply of hand held grit and that grit boxes are adequately filled.”
Following a review of the gritting policy and consultation with residents, the revised document in November 2023 said that “Grit boxes and grit will be provided on all schemes and where residents are able to do so and it is safe, they will be encouraged to participate and grit areas leading to their front doors etc. This point has been agreed by the Residents Panel previously.”
There were further details about the particular gritting service provided at ‘independent living schemes’, which the landlord has clarified does not include the resident’s property/estate.
In this case, following the resident raising his concerns in January 2021 the landlord quickly responded to explain that while its policy was to provide a gritting service for ‘independent living schemes’, other schemes such as the resident’s estate would be given grit boxes. It said that residents’ groups had previously said they were not prepared to pay more service charge to include a gritting service.
The landlord did say that it would review the policy and all residents would be advised once this was approved. It said it had a responsibility to maintain the footpaths and parking bays, but it did not have a responsibility to grit these.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021 and said, “It is our belief that the provision of gritting bins on schemes, to facilitate gritting during frosty periods, with the means of achieving the legitimate aim of taking care to protect residents from falling on ice, is a reasonable and proportionate measure.”
This was an appropriate response to the resident’s enquiry. There is no evidence that the landlord is responsible for providing a gritting service to the resident’s estate. It had investigated the matter previously and it had been decided by a panel of residents that this was not a service they required.
The resident remained dissatisfied and had various technical questions for the landlord which answered promptly. Following the resident sending 5 letters on the subject within 6 days, the matter was logged as a complaint by the landlord.
In its stage 1 response on 26 August 2021, the landlord said that its decision to provide grit bins and allow residents to use these themselves was its policy which had been reviewed on a number of occasions and the risk considered against costs of implementing a gritting service as well as requirements of the lease. The landlord said that recent enquiries prompted review of the approach to gritting, but it considered the provision of bins to be a proportionate means of dealing with the risk of accidents.
The landlord said the costs would change each year as days when temperature dipped below zero varied significantly, but it was taking the matter seriously and was obtaining quotes from contractors. Once received, it would distribute to other residents and ask them to make contact if they would be interested in paying for this. Depending on the result, the landlord would consider if this measure was appropriate to take forward.
This was a fair and reasonable response to the resident’s concerns as it showed a willingness by the landlord to reconsider its policy in reaction to what may have been changing demands of its tenants. It was appropriate that the landlord obtain estimates and consult more widely when the costs would be met by all residents at the scheme.
The landlord wrote to all residents in November 2021 with indicative costs in reference to occasions in the recent past when the temperature fell below zero and asked for feedback. It said it required 100% agreement, and evidence of responses have been provided which indicated that some residents did not wish to proceed with the gritting service including because the area not adopted by the council was small.
In his response, the resident stated that he did not feel the landlord’s figures were correct, the cost should be based on the gritting service at independent living schemes, and the service should be provided by existing maintenance staff. The resident advised that unless the landlord was willing to reconsider its position he did not wish to engage in any further correspondence.
Following further correspondence from the resident, in March 2022 the landlord said it would run a 6-month trial where it would responsively grit the estate when contacted by residents, but that this would be chargeable. The resident responded that this was not acceptable, and the landlord had a duty to keep paths in good repair, but gritting was not part of this, so should not be charged for.
The landlord arranged a face-to-face meeting with the resident and senior managers in May 2022 to try and resolve the issue, but the resident asked the landlord to leave when it said that it would need the agreement of other residents to commence gritting. The landlord then arranged a meeting with all tenants in September 2022, which the resident declined to attend.
The landlord advised all tenants in September 2022 that if there were no objections, a gritting service trial would start from October 2022 to March 2023 for the parts of the estate not adopted by the council, which were the footpaths and car parking spaces.
The resident submitted a 49-page complaint on 16 January 2023. The landlord responded on 20 January 2023 and said that as not all residents had agreed to the gritting, it was unable to implement the trial. It instigated the Unacceptable Behaviour and Unreasonable Demands Policy and provided contact details to the resident so he could appeal the decision but said no further correspondence would be entered into on this subject.
The resident brought the matter to this Service who asked the landlord to provide a final complaint response, which it did on 13 February 2023. The landlord said that a gritting service was not provided but gritting bins were available. Its consultation with residents concluded the majority did not want the gritting service. It said it had taken the issue seriously and tried to work with the resident.
The landlord has taken appropriate steps to resolve the matter, by arranging senior managers meet the resident at home and by consulting with all residents, giving them the option to pay for the service which had been rejected in the past.
The resident has said that he does not believe the landlord’s estimates were correct and he felt that the gritting could be done by existing grounds maintenance staff. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord’s figures, based on contractor’s estimates, were incorrect. The Ombudsman has no basis for disputing the figures which it would expect the landlord to have the relevant expertise on. It is reasonable to assume that there would be less grounds maintenance staff in attendance in the winter and any additional work done by them would still incur further charges.
The resident’s concerns, and his point that the estate caters for retirees, and that this will present mobility issues as the population ages, are acknowledged by the Ombudsman. It is also noted that the resident advised of physical and mental health issues, which would make the icy pavements a greater worry.
The issue for the Ombudsman is not whether the resident had valid concerns, but whether the landlord responded to those concerns appropriately, and acted correctly according to its duty and responsibilities. There is no duty on the landlord to provide the gritting service, but it took appropriate steps to get estimates and consult with residents. Ultimately, the gritting service was not wanted by the majority of the residents, who would have to pay towards it. Had the outcome been different, it would have been reasonable to introduce the gritting service.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the gritting service and explained why it would not be introduced. Accordingly, there is no evidence of maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a gritting service.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Section 3.1 defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service by the landlord.
Section 6.8.1 covers unreasonable, persistent complaints and refers to the Unacceptable Behaviour and Unreasonable Demands Policy and includes “Unwillingness to accept that [the landlord] cannot help them any further than they already have, and persistently contacting us to complain or remonstrate about our action, decision or explanation.”
Section 6.8.2 says the landlord will “consider these demands and this behaviour to be unreasonable if they take up a disproportionate amount of Officers’ time. If we consider a complaint to be unreasonable, persistent or vexatious, a member of ELT will decide how best to deal with the complaint, and how best to communicate to the complainant.”
The Unacceptable Behaviour and Unreasonable Demands Policy (UBUD) itself includes at section 5.2 that examples of this may include “refusing to accept a decision.” Section 7.1 covers unreasonable demands and the number of contacts regarding the same issue. 7.2 covers when demands impact substantially on the work of staff. 7.3 covers persistently seeking an outcome which the landlord has already explained. 8.1 covers the resident not accepting that the landlord cannot assist further.
Section 10 covers resource intensive behaviour. 11.4 covers the landlord advising a resident that the issue has been fully responded to and continuing correspondence on the issue is not acceptable. 12.1 covers the resident’s right to appeal and that the landlord must advise them how to appeal.
In this instance, although the resident did not formally submit a complaint, the number of contacts made by the resident on the subject of the gritting service prior to August 2021 indicates that the decision by the landlord to log a formal complaint was appropriate. The complaint was answered within a few days of the resident being advised of this by the Chief Executive’s office. The response was thorough and explained the action the landlord was taking to obtain estimates and canvass other residents’ opinions.
Following the stage 1 response on 26 August 2021, the resident replied via 2 emails the same day to say that the landlord must act to remedy the alleged discrimination against the residents of the estate, or he would commence legal action. He also said that if the landlord would not change its position, he wanted no further contact on the issue. The resident said that he was too ill to engage in further correspondence.
The resident then contacted the landlord on the same issue on 9 September 2021 and said that the landlord risked losing the legal case he was going to take. He said he wanted no further contact other than an acknowledgment of his letter.
The landlord then consulted all residents on the estate regarding costs of a gritting service and the resident responded on 11 November 2021 to suggest that the landlord should use existing maintenance staff for the gritting service. The landlord acknowledged the letter and said it would reply in 10 days, but the resident replied that he wanted no response unless a senior manager wanted to discuss the matter with him.
The landlord acknowledged the email and the resident said there was no point in the landlord responding. However, he then wrote on 16 November 2021 to ask why his letter was acknowledged when he had asked for no further contact but requested that the landlord acknowledge the current email. The landlord responded on 22 November 2021 to advise the resident that he could ask for his complaint to be reviewed at stage 2 if he wished.
This was appropriate action by the landlord as it was evident from the resident’s emails and letters that he was not satisfied with what had been said by the landlord. At the same time, he said he would start legal proceedings, but wanted no contact from the landlord unless its position has changed. It was important that the resident was reminded that he had a formal complaint process available to him, and for the landlord to ensure that it had taken all steps to follow the complaint procedure.
The resident replied on the same day, stating that it was not a complaint as the landlord had said and under no circumstances should it communicate with him. On 10 December 2021 the resident sent the landlord an email headed ‘pre action protocol.’ The landlord stated in its acknowledgment that, as he requested, it would not communicate further on the issue. The resident wrote on 2 March 2022 to say that if the landlord wished to discuss the reactive gritting he would respond positively, otherwise he would proceed to litigation.
The landlord responded on 25 March 2022 to say it planned to run a 6-month trial from October and there was some correspondence over the next few months as well as a visit to the resident’s property.
The resident sent a 49-page typed letter headed “complaint of maladministration’ on 16 January 2023 re-stating his demands. The landlord response, on 20 January 2023, reiterated its position. It also explained that it had instigated its Unacceptable Behaviour and Unreasonable Demands (UBUD) Policy.
It was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident of the updated position following the consultation with all residents as this could be said to be the landlord reconsidering the gritting issue as he had asked. Following the resident escalating the matter, the landlord again explained its position. It said it had taken the issue seriously and tried to work with the resident, but the subsequent correspondence from him had taken a disproportionate amount of time and the UBUD policy had been implemented.
There is no evidence that the resident appealed against the decision to implement the UBUD policy, and in effect the landlord’s final response was also a review of that decision. The evidence indicates that the decision of the landlord to invoke the UBUD policy was appropriately applied in the circumstances. From the resident’s first contact in January 2021, the landlord acknowledged his letters and responded promptly.
The landlord has responded positively and reasonably to the resident, and correctly used the complaints process when it was clear that the resident was dissatisfied with its response. The resident sent variations on the detailed 49-page letter to the CEO, which would take considerable time to be reviewed. It is not unreasonable that the landlord found that this used a disproportionate amount of resources.
The landlord acted in accordance with its policy in refusing to enter into further correspondence on the subject of gritting on the estate, and its response to the resident’s complaint was in order. There were several occasions when the resident said that he did not want any further discussion on the subject, but then wrote again on the same issue.
The landlord’s responses were prompt and patient, and it is difficult to see what more it could have offered to resolve the matter for the resident when it had found that the service was not wanted by other residents. Although the landlord said it had not noted any vulnerabilities for the resident, its actions showed empathy and sensitivity to the resident’s concerns, including when senior staff offered to meet him in his home.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that this has been a stressful issue for the resident. However, as above, the action taken by the landlord was appropriate and fair in all the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its handling of the resident’s concerns about winter gritting.
2. Its response to the related complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord update its internal customer database to reflect any health issues or vulnerabilities associated with the resident’s of the property.