The Guinness Partnership Limited (201900772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900772

The Guinness Partnership Limited

28 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 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 decision to restrict the resident’s contact with it in November 2018.

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.
On 28 February 2019, the Ombudsman issued a determination in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB, specifically, noise nuisance from his neighbour. This Service found that there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the reports of noise nuisance but service failure in respect of its handling of the complaint.
The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the service failure found in its complaints handling and recommended that the landlord provide staff training about complaint handling.
The resident requested a review of the Ombudsman’s decision and on 7 May 2019 the Ombudsman confirmed its original decision.
In the course of his complaint about ASB, in November 2018, the landlord imposed contact restrictions on the resident and this is the subject of the current complaint. In support of his complaint, the resident has also supplied documentation and information to this Service regarding ASB by way of noise nuisance, as well as information regarding alleged drone use, aggravated intercom pressing and provided information he received from Ofcom regarding his neighbour, evidence of his neighbour running a radio station and asserted his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to and handling of a ‘trigger meeting’ regarding the previously reported ASB.
Whilst the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his reports of ASB and its associated communication and handling of the situation, as well as the aforementioned issues above, these are matters that were brought to the landlord as a formal complaint and exhausted both the landlord’s complaint procedure and the Ombudsman adjudication process.
These matters will not be revisited in this determination in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme, which states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme, these aspects are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and this determination will focus purely on the landlord’s imposition of contact restrictions.
Should there be newer issues concerning ASB or anything else, the resident has the option of making a formal complaint to the landlord about these and where he remains dissatisfied with the outcome of his complaint, has the option of bringing the matter to this Service having first exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident should note, however, that the landlord has discretion to decide, in accordance with its complaints policy, where appropriate, not to investigate complaints which it believes to be unreasonably or vexatiously pursued or to investigate matters which it has previously addressed.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 24 April 2010.
The landlord’s published ‘Code of Conduct’ sets out expectations around behaviours of its staff and customers, which includes being respectful, courteous and reasonable and states that it will take action where customers behave unreasonably and make unreasonable demands, which could include restricting contact.
Where contact is restricted this will be reviewed, ordinarily after 12 months. The individual with the restrictions placed on them is also able to appeal the landlord’s decision to do this.
The ‘Code of Conduct’ provides examples of unreasonable behaviour, including making unsubstantiated allegations and examples of unreasonable demands, including an excessively high volume of contact.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure, whereby it aims to respond to a complaint within 10 working days at both stages one and two; at stage two, this being within 10 working days of an escalation request being made.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will not investigate a complaint where a complainant behaves in an abusive or harassing way.

Summary of events

There was much communication between the resident and landlord throughout March 2018, regarding reported ASB.
Extensive communication continued throughout May 2018 to November 2018 when formal contact restrictions were imposed. The following selection of examples indicate the nature and degree of contact, most of which were to multiple members of staff:

On 6 May 2018 the resident emailed a member of staff at the landlord stating “having been told to engage with you again…what do you propose to do about this?” and made reference to noise nuisance by his neighbour;
On 9 May 2018 the resident emailed the landlord regarding evidence of ASB and questioning the landlord about its assessment of this and demanding the landlord stop the neighbour from storing bicycles in the building;
On 15 May 2018 the resident emailed the landlord asking it to substantiate, with times and dates, its “allegation” that he had been “slamming and banging” over the weekend;
On 19 May 2018, the resident emailed the landlord which he entitled a “reply to allegations presumably made by [his neighbour]”, stating they were “rubbish”;
On 20 May 2018, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he had heard “hammering and banging” from his neighbour;
On 24 May 2018, the resident emailed landlord regarding information disclosure with regards to his neighbour, stating he was “not impressed” with the landlord and that the matter was now in the hands of his solicitor;
On 17 June 2018 the resident emailed the landlord reporting ASB;
On 18 June 2018, the resident emailed the landlord stating that its comments to him had been “noted” and forward to the Ombudsman. In his email he also referred to ASB and his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of it over the years, with the landlord being “consistent in doing nothing”;
On 4 July 2018 the resident emailed the landlord regarding his doorbell being run and stating that the landlord should send an engineer out otherwise he will disable it himself;
On the same date, the landlord asked the resident to engage with one person only and not to send his emails to multiple members of staff;
On 9 July 2018, the resident contacted the landlord stating that it should contact his neighbour and ask him not to fly a drone;
On 10 July 2018, the landlord reiterated its request for the resident to contact a particular individual;
On 11 July 2018, the resident emailed the landlord asking why it was restricting contact with other staff. He also asked questions about another member of staff he had dealt with in the past and reiterated the issue with the drone;
On 16 July 2018 the resident forwarded police guidance on drone use to the landlord;
On 18 July 2018, the resident emailed the landlord stating “have a drone picture” courtesy of his neighbour;
On 15 August 2018, the resident emailed the landlord stating that his dissatisfaction with it, was with the Ombudsman and “other third parties”;
On 1 October 2018, the resident reported further ASB;
On 8 October 2018, the resident emailed the landlord about ASB and his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to reports of it and asked questions about its handling of it;
On 12 October 2018, the resident emailed the landlord regarding ASB and the installation of noise monitoring equipment which he agreed to have installed but was dissatisfied with, feeling that it was an invasion of his privacy;
On 17 October 2018 the landlord emailed again regarding ASB;
On 18 October 2018, the resident emailed the landlord about an incident with his neighbour where his neighbour had been “close to tears”, trying to diffuse the situation and “showing remorse”;
On 29 October 2018 the resident sent a number of emails to the landlord; he raised questions regarding the trigger meeting, including asking about the representative at the trigger meeting, as well as requesting notes from the meeting and stating that the landlord could not substantiate what it was saying, without having taken notes;
On 30 October 2018, the resident emailed the landlord to advise it that he had complained to the local authority about the trigger meeting;
On 10 November 2018, the resident emailed the landlord questioning the capability of its staff and its handling of ASB, stating that he was “not impressed” and stated that the ASB case was not closed, but remained open, and;
On 13 November 2018 the resident made a complaint to the landlord about a member of staff, following contact from them advising that the resident’s ASB case was now closed.

On the same date the landlord wrote to the resident restricting his contact with it. The landlord explained that it had decided to restrict the resident’s contact because his behaviour had not improved since it was last in touch with him about it on 4 July 2018. It added that his complaint of 13 November 2018 had no merit and had been closed. It said that as this has happened a number of times the landlord considered the resident to be in breach of its ‘Unacceptable Customer Conduct Principles’. The landlord explained that this was because the resident:

Had continued to send emails to a member of staff despite being asked not to;
Continued to send multiple emails demanding action when the complaint had been closed, and;
Continued to make unsubstantiated allegations about his neighbour.

It further explained that the resident’s behaviour was unacceptable because he had continued to make unreasonable demands for action to be taken, without there being evidence to support his allegations and he had taken up a disproportionate amount of staff time.
The landlord advised that with immediate effect the resident had a single point of contact who he should contact no more than once a week about ASB or any other concerns. It advised that he should contact it in the case of emergency repair in the normal manner and gave examples of these. The landlord said it would review the restrictions in 12 months’ time.
The contact management plan provided to this Service documents that restrictions were put in place due to the resident making “excessive and multiple complaints regarding his neighbour and a number of unsubstantiated allegations of ASB” and despite the resident having exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, had continued to send emails to multiple people across the business, including the Chief Executive and demanding meetings with senior members of staff.
The contact management plan further notes that informal contact restrictions had been in place following the resident being warned regarding unreasonable levels of contact and demand yet he had continued to send emails to the Chief Executive’s Office, acknowledging that he had been warned not to. The landlord stated that it was implementing the contact management plan to allow the resident the opportunity to engage constructively.
Five months later, in April 2019, the resident made a complaint to the landlord about the contact restrictions imposed on 13 November 2018, stating that he received the letter on 26 February 2019. The resident expressed that he was of the view the landlord’s behaviour was “unprofessional” and restrictions were “possibly unlawful”, and “an infringement of [his] civil liberties”.
On 12 April 2019, the resident emailed the landlord asking to meet with it to discuss the previous Ombudsman determination.
On 13 May 2019 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure. The complaint was not upheld, with the landlord reiterating its reasons for the contact restrictions and referring him to its online guidance on unacceptable conduct.
The landlord stated that the resident’s further allegations that it was not engaging with him were unsubstantiated and explained that it had a 48-hour timeframe in place, to respond to any enquiry. It encouraged the resident to continue to liaise with his single point of contact and engage according to the contact restrictions to help re-build the landlord-resident relationship.
On 20 May 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord, again requesting to meet.
On 24 May 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident advising him that he was not keeping to the restricted contact plan and if he continued to breach this it would consider taking further action, possibly by way of application for an injunction or commencing possession proceedings.
On 13 September 2019, the resident contacted this Service bringing his complaint about the contact restrictions imposed on him by the landlord. The resident believed the restrictions to have been imposed as a result of the Ombudsman’s previous determination and stated that the landlord was not responding to his correspondence. As resolution to his complaint, the resident wished to meet with senior management at the landlord to discuss the ongoing situation.
On 26 September 2019 the landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident regarding his “repeated breaches of the restricted contact plan”. It advised that the landlord would respond to any contact he makes once every two weeks (save for emergencies). It advised that legal action may be taken should the resident continue to “vexatiously complain”, “take up disproportionate amounts of time” and not stop “repetitive and unnecessary communications”.
In November 2019, the contact management plan and restrictions on contact placed on the resident, ended, following 12 months of them being in place.
On 16 April 2020 the landlord confirmed to this Service that it responded to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure and a request to escalate it to stage two was not made. Its complaints policy states that it will not investigate matters or escalate complaints where the matter is more than six months old and so it would not be escalating this complaint due to the passage of time. It also advised that the contact restrictions that were in place were put in place for a year and had now been removed.
On 25 August 2020, the resident advised this Service that he had emailed members of staff at the landlord and his emails were returned to him undelivered.

Assessment and findings

Whilst the resident was clearly dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of reports he had made of ASB, there was a reasonable expectation on him to behave in a respectful and courteous manner in his contact with it and not to make excessive contact and demands. This expectation is articulated in the landlord’s published ‘Code of Conduct’, which sets out standards of behaviour expected of both its staff and residents.
The landlord was entitled to impose contact restrictions on the resident where it found that he had interacted with it in breach of the ‘Code of Conduct’, which is described in the same document and the landlord arrived at that assessment and decision in this case. It was reasonable that the landlord did not impose contact restrictions without having first provided the resident with an opportunity to modify his interactions with it, because it was not obliged to do this and did so both on 4 and 10 July 2018, some months before it imposed contact restrictions formally.
The resident did not put things right following the landlord’s initial informal warning on 4 July 2018 and reminder on 10 July 2018, instead continuing to email and write to the landlord excessively and persistently about the same issues and emailing to make assertions, ask questions and repeat his dissatisfaction with it. Further, his contacts were made to multiple members of staff, including senior members of staff, whose role is not to deal with the issues the resident was raising; there are other designated staff, trained to deal with and respond to the matters raised.
The contact restrictions imposed on the resident in November 2018 were reasonable; they still enabled him to make contact with the landlord at a reasonable frequency (initially once weekly) and to have a designated, dedicated point of contact. The contact management agreement provided to this Service shows the reasoning behind the imposition of contact restrictions; the intention was not silence or ignore the resident but to help manage his contact and facilitate more productive engagement.
It was appropriate that the resident was still able to report emergency repairs because the landlord was obliged to carry out any emergency repairs reported, irrespective of contact restrictions outside of this. In terms of the reporting of ASB, it is important that a resident who purports to be experiencing ASB is able to notify the landlord, however, this should be done in a purposeful and constructive way so as to obtain evidence, which will inform any steps the landlord may take, informal or otherwise.
Despite the ASB case having been closed in November 2018, the contact management plan enabled the resident to still notify the landlord of any new incidents once per week, which was reasonable. Importantly to note here, however, is that this determination is not assessing the landlord’s response to the reported ASB, which was the subject of an earlier investigation and determination, where no maladministration was found.
Where much correspondence is sent to a landlord and moreover, is sent to multiple members of staff, rather than expediting a response or resolution, it adds time and creates unnecessary work. A single point of contact, whilst being part of the contact restrictions in this case, is common practice in handling reports of ASB, for instance, as was the situation here. Whilst the resident had a number of points he wanted to make, questions he wanted to ask and dissatisfaction he wanted to express, the landlord acted reasonably in requiring that the communication was managed in the way that it was. The resident has stated that the landlord was not responding to him, however, correspondence provided to this Service evidences the landlord frequently responding quickly to many emails sent.
Despite the informal warning and the imposition of the contact restrictions, the resident continued to contact multiple people at the landlord and at an excessive frequency which led to a solicitor’s letter being sent to him almost a year later, in September 2019. Although the resident has felt this to be punitive and disproportionate, the landlord was entitled to take further action, where it had previously tried to resolve the situation by lesser means and the resident continued to not adhere of what was being asked of him.
In terms of the resident not being aware of the contact restrictions imposed in November 2018 until February 2019, it is not known why this was the case. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord wrote but did not send the letter or that it otherwise forgot to let him know that it had imposed the restrictions that it did. The resident was also aware of the earlier information requests regarding his level and manner of contact, which he did not take on board.
In responding to the complaint, there was a slight delay by the landlord in sending its response. In the context of the high level of contact and the landlord’s many responses over time, however, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to take slightly longer than its target timeframe to respond; indeed, complaints often do take longer to respond to where issues are complex or there is lots of documentation to consider, for example.
In terms of escalation there was no formal escalation request made and the landlord was entitled to decline to escalate the complaint where more than six months had passed, which is a position supported by the Ombudsman and set out and underpinned in the Scheme, specifically, paragraph 39(e).
The resident expressed his wish to meet with senior members of staff at the landlord to discuss various issues of dissatisfaction that he said he had experienced over time. Even though this was what the resident wanted, the landlord was not obliged to provide him with this outcome. This complaint response was in respect of the imposition of the contact restrictions, which it had clearly explained in writing on three occasions, not including the solicitor’s letter.
It is clear that the resident wished to be heard and understood in his concerns, however, his approach led to restrictions in contact which ultimately undermined what he was trying to achieve. His dissatisfaction with the outcome of the ASB investigation and handling and its eventual closure undoubtedly exacerbated how he felt, however the landlord was not required to continue to revisit matters that had already been investigated, to meet to discuss historic events or to take copious amounts of time to respond to the resident’s many assertions and questions. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord provided satisfactory responses to the resident’s communications.
The resident has asserted to this Service that the landlord put in place contact restrictions as a direct result of the Ombudsman’s findings in the previous case he brought to us regarding the landlord’s handling of the reported ASB. The Ombudsman would like to take this opportunity to state that this is not the case; the landlord imposed the contact restrictions because of the resident’s unreasonable contact with it and its decision is unrelated to the Ombudsman’s findings as to its handling of ASB reports. The timing of the restrictions being imposed and the release of the Ombudsman’s determination was no more than coincidental.
The landlord removed the contact restrictions after 12 months of them being in place. This was in accordance with the ‘Code of Conduct’ and in line with what was communicated to the resident about the restrictions when they were imposed. It is not clear whether the removal of these restrictions were communicated to the resident, however, which should have reasonably been done. The resident has stated that since the restrictions have been removed, some of his emails to contacts at the landlord are being returned undelivered; this should not be the case.
Conversely, however, the removal of the contact restrictions does not mean that the resident should revert to emailing multiple people at the landlord or making unreasonably frequent contact; as mentioned earlier on in this report, it is good practice for a resident to have a dedicated individual with whom they make contact about issues such as those raised by the resident, irrespective of any contact restrictions. A recommendation has been made in regards to clarifying contact and reasonableness.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

There was no maladministration insofar as the landlord imposed the contact restrictions following two information prior warnings about the nature and level of the resident’s contact, which did not see a change in the resident’s approach. The contact restrictions themselves were reasonable and were removed after 12 months of being in place, in accordance with the ‘Code of Conduct’.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to make clear to the resident, by setting out in writing (by letter and email to ensure receipt), which individual and/or inbox/department the resident should contact regarding issues he may experience. The landlord to be clear about what is considered reasonable contact.