LiveWest Homes Limited (202006136)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006136

LiveWest Homes Limited

21 May 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 refers to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the implementation and extension of a single point of contact arrangement.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a joint tenant of the property which is maintained by the landlord.
On 27 April 2020 the landlord responded to a separate complaint made by the resident about parking at the property. It explained that the resident was in contact with several different people across its organisation which had led to miscommunication or delayed responses. It decided that it would be best for her to have a single point of contact (SPOC) to ensure that her enquiries were dealt with in a timely manner. It asked her to contact her housing officer for all tenancy and estate related concerns in the first instance and encouraged the resident to contact its Customer Service Centre for any property repairs or urgent enquiries.
The landlord attended the property on 10 September 2020 to address the separate complaint about parking. It said that all parties agreed that a more consistent and coordinated approach was needed in terms of communication. The resident emailed the landlord on 11 September 2020 and asked for the member of staff appointed as the SPOC to be a manager she had communicated with in the past.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 September 2020 and explained the following:
1. It found the level of contact from the resident challenging, especially in light of Covid-19. This was because it had a backlog of repairs for customers impacted by the pandemic. The demands the resident was making on its service were unrealistic and it was receiving multiple requests for services connected to non-urgent issues. It explained that the time it was spending dealing with her contact was taking up a disproportionate amount of time and placing undue anxiety on its staff who were trying to assist all customers.
2. It confirmed that the resident had agreed that it would be in everyone’s interest to arrange a contact point, who could help coordinate its responses. It explained that its managers did not have the availability to be a SPOC, but the landlord had assigned another member of staff. It asked the resident to contact this SPOC by email only and not to use any other methods unless she was reporting a repair through its contact centre.
On 20 October 2020 the resident asked for a formal complaint to be raised about the SPOC arrangement and no longer wished to have this arrangement in place. On 26 October 2020 she provided her specific reasons for the complaint:
1. When she had agreed to the single point of contact arrangement, she had hoped the SPOC would be the area housing manager, but this was not the case. She explained that she did not have a problem with the current SPOC but was concerned that this member of staff was only able to collate responses and was not able to discuss any ongoing issues. For this reason, any responses would be delayed.
2. She noted that the SPOC had been away for a week and had stated that emails would be responded to on their return. She was concerned that she was not allowed to contact the landlord during this time unless it was to raise a repair. She asked what would have happened if she had an issue with antisocial behaviour during this time or an emergency.
3. She felt that she was being treated differently compared to other tenants as she could not access the landlord’s services in the same way as others. She was unhappy with the current plan and did not feel it was working well.
On 5 November 2020 the landlord issued its SPOC review response and explained the following:
1. It appreciated that the resident was expecting a member of staff in its housing department to be appointed as her SPOC and confirmed that her housing officer had been appointed her SPOC in April 2020. This presented difficulties as they only worked part time and were not always available.
2. It explained that the SPOC was not in place to answer all queries and provide immediate feedback, but to ensure that responses were provided in full and on time. It agreed with the decision to appoint a SPOC that worked full-time to ensure that there was an effective flow of communication. Taking this into account, it agreed that the current SPOC was suitable, as they worked full time and were proficient at coordination and dissemination of information in their job role.
3. It understood that the SPOC arrangement could lead to delays if the appointed person were absent or not at their desk, but it was confident that the current SPOC was providing a timely and responsive service. It had found no evidence to suggest that any responses had been delayed and confirmed that any issues were promptly communicated internally.
4. It explained that the member of staff appointed as the SPOC had made the resident aware when they were due to go on leave. It noted that it may not have been explicitly clear as to what the resident should do in case of emergency during these periods and confirmed that the resident should contact the relevant emergency service and then make contact through its customer service centre in these circumstances.
5. It had reviewed the level of contact from the resident since February 2020 and found that 53 calls had been made to its landline numbers. The landlord was not able to obtain individual mobile numbers, but it was aware that the resident had also called various members of staff directly during this period on multiple occasions. The landlord confirmed that this level of contact, combined with the emails the resident had sent during this time, was not sustainable.
6. It acknowledged that the resident felt penalised due to its inability to coordinate responses; however, its review had indicated that the contact plan was a sensible and proportionate way to ensure that the resident could access the landlord’s services and raise issues. It explained that it was better suited to coordinate its responses and ensure her queries were directed to the most appropriate person with this agreement in place.
7. It confirmed that the SPOC was working well, and it had found no evidence to suggest that responses were being delayed. It said it would review the agreement by 15 February 2021. It said that it would also confirm the SPOC arrangement in writing, including what should happen in the event of an emergency. The landlord confirmed that the review was the equivalent of a stage one complaint response and that the resident could escalate this matter to stage two of its complaints process if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded on 5 and 6 November 2020 and asked for the complaint to be escalated for the following reasons:
1. The landlord had not made her aware that her housing officer had been her single point of contact since April 2020. She said that she had never considered her housing officer to be her SPOC and the SPOC was only confirmed on 16 September 2020.
2. She explained that there would be some delay in communication as the current SPOC had only been asked to collate and forward responses to and from the relevant person. She expressed dissatisfaction that she received its response on 5 November 2020 and that this was outside of its five working day timescale for handling complaints at stage one.
3. The resident maintained her position that the landlord was treating her differently to other tenants. She was only able to communicate with the repairs line and one other member of staff, whereas other residents could communicate with any staff member by any means. She did not understand why the SPOC had been appointed as her emails to the SPOC were being sent directly to her housing officer and she felt this defeated the purpose of the arrangement. She added that she was paying for a service and she should be able to access the service like any other tenant. She said it was its role to respond to her queries.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 November 2020 and said that it had told the resident about the SPOC on 28 April 2020. It also explained that as the process for reviewing a SPOC was outlined in its Sensitive Customer Information Flagging procedure, there was no requirement for it to raise a complaint or adhere to the complaint handling timescales. It confirmed that it was required to carry out its review within ten working days and it provided its response on the ninth working day. The landlord sent a further email on the same day and confirmed that the resident should receive a stage two complaint response by 17 November 2020.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 9 November 2020 and confirmed that she did not see her housing officer as her SPOC, and therefore continued to communicate with other staff members from April 2020. She confirmed that she had not been made aware of the appeal process for the SPOC and consequently believed that the review would be completed within the complaint policy timescales.
On 13 November 2020 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response and explained the following:
1. It explained that the current SPOC was ideally situated to take up this role, as they worked full-time and had the experience and expertise to coordinate this process. It explained that the current SPOC had a designated contact in each department and was able to direct responses quickly between the resident and the appropriate person. It had found no evidence of any delays due to the current SPOC being in place.
2. It again confirmed that in the case of emergency, when the SPOC is absent, the resident should report repairs to its contact centre and any other concerns would be picked up on their return. It appreciated that the resident felt that this had not been made clear.
3. The landlord confirmed that a SPOC helped it respond to tenants who found it necessary to contact it frequently; this helped it to balance the delivery of services to all of its tenants. The framework was in place to improve its communication by providing a speedier response whist making sure that the resident received a consistent solution-focused service.
4. It confirmed that the current arrangement was working well, and the appointed SPOC had the appropriate skill set to effectively coordinate all responses. The landlord was therefore unable to uphold the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that it would review the contact arrangement by 15 February 2021 and would provide further clarity in the event of emergency when the SPOC was out of office.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two complaint response on 18 November 2020 and advised the following:
1. She explained that the volume of contact she had needed to make was due to poor communication, planning, and organisation by the landlord. She said that it should not be to her detriment that she was assigned a SPOC. She confirmed that she did not agree to the arrangement.
2. She explained that there was evidence of delayed responses as per the landlord’s Customer Compliments, Complaints & Feedback Policy, in adhering to the timescales in responding to complaints.
3. She expressed concern that if the SPOC were on leave that any responses would be picked up on their return, and that this would cause an inevitable delay. She felt that emailing the SPOC asking them to forward the email to her housing officer was “pointless” as the housing officer already received the email directly.
4. She explained that as she was paying for the service provided by the landlord, she should be able to contact the landlord by any means available, whenever was necessary, and the landlord was excluding her by preventing her from doing this.
The landlord provided the outcome of its review of the contact arrangement on 2 February 2021. It said that the resident has made 103 contacts in the space of three months. Despite the level of contact, it felt that it had been able to meet its service standard through appointing a SPOC. By providing a central contact who was aware of the overall situation, it felt that it was able to provide a more personalised service. It confirmed that the SPOC would remain in place and it would review the contact plan further by 1 August 2021.
On 21 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that over the past six months, the resident’s level of contact had not reduced which gave it cause for concern. It explained that the resident was taking up an unreasonable and disproportionate amount of its time and resources, which diluted the amount of support it could offer its other tenants. Due to the excessively high contact, unreasonable and persistent use of the complaint’s process and comments on its social media pages, the landlord imposed a number of ground rules to the SPOC arrangement. The resident and landlord agreed that she could appeal this decision before 28 May 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s decision to implement the SPCO arrangement and its overall communication.

Assessment and findings

Policies

The landlord’s Difficult Customer Relationship Guidance considers relationships to be difficult or challenging where a customer demands a level of contact which cannot be met. This may include an excessive amount of information requests, multiple points of contact being used, or ongoing contact which takes up a disproportionate amount of time. A relationship could also be considered difficult where a customer raises persistent challenges, for example, a failure or unwillingness to accept the outcome of a complaint or decision.
Decisions about whether to act, particularly in considering restricting contact, would usually be determined through an assessment process which should consider:
1. Severity and impact of the difficult relationship
2. Number of instances
3. Breadth and frequency of contact the customer makes
4. Reasons why the relationship with the customer has become difficult to manage
5. Customers’ needs and circumstances
6. Whether the behaviour is because of a protected characteristic of the customer
7. Any customer needs or reasonable adjustments the landlord should consider under the Equality Act.
The outcome of an assessment would determine the action the landlord should take. Where the landlord wishes to impose a restriction on the customer’s frequency and form of contact, actions can include:
1. Appointing a single point of contact for incoming communication
2. Limiting the customer to a single form of contact (telephone, letter, etc)
3. Refusing to register or investigate further complaints about matters which have already been considered
4. Alternative dispute resolutions such as mediation
If a decision is made to formally place restrictions around the customer’s contact, the landlord should write to the resident and explain:
1. The decision made and the contact restrictions imposed
2. Why the decision has been made
3. What the decision means for the customer
4. How long any restrictions might last, or other applicable timeframes
5. How the customer can request a review of the decision.
An appeal should usually be raised within 15 days of the decision being communicated to the customer. An independent manager should then review the case and advise the customer of the outcome; there is no published timescale in which the review should be completed.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the implementation and extension of a single point of contact arrangement.

The Ombudsman understands that landlords have a finite number of resources and that receiving and replying to excessive communications can limit the effectiveness of its service to all residents. The landlord would be acting in accordance with its policy, to place a SPOC if it deemed that a resident had met the criteria. In this case, the landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why it understood the resident’s contact to be unreasonable and why it felt the SPOC arrangement was suitable; however, it has not implemented this arrangement in line with its Difficult Customer Relationship Guidance processes.
This Service does not believe the current SPOC arrangement to be unreasonable given the level and nature of communication from the resident and the evidence provided to this Service. The landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on unacceptable behaviour, which confirms that where behaviour is so demanding or persistent that it places unreasonable demands on the landlord and impacts the level of service that can be offered to others, implementing a single point of contact or limiting the form of contact is appropriate.
It is clear that the resident feels like she is being treated unfairly and differently to other residents as she cannot contact the landlord in the same way as other tenants. However, the landlord has a duty to ensure that it can provide its services to a suitable standard for all residents and it is within its right to limit contact from a tenant if it feels that its services are being encumbered. The current arrangement does not prevent the resident from contacting the landlord to report repairs or raise complaints, and the landlord has not ‘barred’ the resident from using its services.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord’s communication in this case could have been clearer, and it has not followed best practice or its process when implementing the arrangement. The landlord would be expected to provide a verbal warning to the resident prior to taking any action in relation to the amount of contact received. This is to allow a resident to modify their behaviour prior to any formal action being taken. The landlord does not appear to have explained that it found her contact unreasonable prior to April 2020 when the arrangement began and did not initially give the resident time to modify this behaviour.
Whilst the landlord confirmed that the resident had agreed to this arrangement on 16 September 2020, she did not understand the SPOC to be a formal arrangement as this had not been communicated in April 2020. The landlord did not satisfactorily explain what the decision meant for the resident, how long the restrictions might last, or how she could request a review of the decision in line with its Difficult Customer Relationship Guidance when the SPCO was put in place.
Furthermore, the resident was not provided with information on how the arrangement could be reviewed until 26 October 2020 when she no longer wanted the SPOC arrangement and wanted to raise a complaint. This was not appropriate as this was six months after the arrangement had been put in place. Prior to this date it was understandable that she may have thought the SPOC was voluntary and this would have impacted her compliance with the arrangement from April 2020.
The landlord has acknowledged that it had not fully explained what the resident should do when her SPOC was unavailable in the case of an emergency. This information would be especially important considering that the resident relies on the SPOC for communication. The landlord has not provided further clarity to the resident in relation to what she should do in case of an emergency as it said it would; it is therefore recommended that it does so. The landlord should also consider appointing another designated SPOC during absence or leave periods to ensure that a service continues to be provided to the resident during this time.
The resident has raised concerns about delayed responses as a result of the SPOC arrangement. It is noted that there are no clear response timescales for communication between the resident and her SPOC. This may have caused the resident some uncertainty and may have led to an increase in contact as there was no clear expectations of when she should receive responses. There is no evidence provided to this Service to confirm that any delays in communication were a direct result of the SPOC arrangement. However, the landlord should agree timescales for responses with the resident to prevent her from making additional unnecessary contact with the SPOC.
The landlord has not provided an explanation as to why emails the resident sends to the SPOC are automatically forwarded to her housing officer and it is understandable that the resident may find this confusing. She has also advised that the arrangement has been broken as several members of the landlord’s staff have contacted her directly. Ultimately, this matter does not negatively impact the resident and this Service would not question the day-to-day processes associated with how emails are sent or received internally. The landlord’s guidance states that it may provide restrictions on incoming communication and does not comment on outbound communication.
The landlord imposed further ground rules for the SPOC arrangement on 3 February 2021 and the resident has stated that she wishes to appeal this. As the outcome of this appeal is still pending, this Service cannot comment on this matter further. If the resident has further concerns about the outcome of this review, she may wish to raise a separate case to the Ombudsman for investigation, but this will need to have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure prior to being considered by the Ombudsman.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with the expected response date for her SPOC review on 26 October 2020, although the resident was not significantly impacted in this case as the response was issued within ten working days of the acknowledgement. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code timescales for stage one equivalent responses.
In summary, the landlord’s decision to implement a SPOC arrangement for the resident was in line with its guidance due to the evidence of high levels of contact from the resident. The difficulties the resident had reported would not mean that the landlord was required to end the SPOC arrangement, but rather that the landlord should ensure that the arrangement functions correctly moving forward. The landlord has not acted in line with its Difficult Customer Relationship Guidance when communicating this formal arrangement to the resident. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the implementation and extension of a single point of contact arrangement.

Reasons

The landlord has not followed its guidance on implementing restrictions on contact for the resident. Whilst the landlord has provided a satisfactory explanation as to why its implementation of a SPOC arrangement was reasonable given the amount and nature of contact from the resident, this was not effectively communicated to the resident from the outset.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord:
1. pay the resident £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to communicate clearly regarding the SPOC arrangement,
2. write to the resident and provide further information as to who she should contact in the case of emergency or when the appointed SPOC is absent,
3. if it has not already done so the landlord should confirm to the resident its timescales for responding to the resident’s emails.