Westward Housing Group (201909454)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909454

Westward Housing Group

4 May 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the repairs to the roof.
2. Decision not to raise a complaint in response to the resident’s request.
3. The landlord’s communication with the resident including comments she had been ‘vexatious and persistent’.
The resident has also complained that the landlord has committed defamation of her character.

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.
Paragraph 42 (g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where it is considered quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint that the landlord has committed defamation of her character is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
This is because a claim of defamation, including slander, is something which is most appropriately decided by a court.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been an assured tenant since 24 June 2019. The property is a one-bedroom flat and is occupied by the resident and her husband who both have disabilities. The property is part of a scheme of 105 properties. The scheme is made up of a mixture of both general needs and shared ownership properties.

Landlord’s response to the roof repair and decision not to raise a complaint

In May 2020, the resident reported that there was an ingress of water into her hallway. At the time of her report, the resident had an open complaint with the landlord. The landlord issued its stage two response on 28 May 2020, and commented on the roof leak within its correspondence. It said that its Technical Surveyor had inspected the area. In doing so, they identified that the issue only occurred when the rain hit the roof “at a particular angle”. It had placed a works order with its contractor to put up suitable scaffolding to inspect the area suspected of causing the problem. However, owing to Covid-19 restrictions, the inspection and repair had been temporarily delayed. It was aware that the team was hoping to erect the scaffolding and undertake the repairs soon.
The resident sent an email on 30 June 2020 asking for an update regarding the leak in the roof. The landlord replied on 3 July explaining that it was waiting for a roof report from the surveyor, adding there were delays due to reduced resources at that time. It is clear from this email that there were three elements to the roof work: 1) Some level of clearance relating to the guttering; 2) to address leaks and 3) to address insulation. The resident sent a further email and a follow up to chase the response. On 15 July 2020 the landlord replied that it was having a meeting with the surveyor to discuss proposals to rectify the ingress of moisture. It also clarified that this work would take place at the same time as the insulation.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 July 2020 explaining that it could not repair the roof and it would need to replace it. The email alluded to some work that had already taken place but which also highlighted issues with holes forming in the roof felt. It explained the overall resolution would be to replace the roof and not patch repair it. It gave the resident a detailed summary of the works that were required but could not confirm a time frame at that stage. It is unclear from the documentation provided by the landlord when this work was completed.
On 22 February 2021 the resident reported a pest issue to the landlord. In this correspondence she added that the roof and loft were the landlord’s responsibility, and that the area was due to be inspected after the works had been completed. The resident added that she would raise another complaint if necessary, and the landlord was “shrugging” its responsibility. There is no record of the landlord formally responding to the resident about this but her email was passed internally to provide a response regarding the inspection.
The resident contacted one of the landlord’s surveyors (Mr R) on 25 February 2021by email. Mr R made arrangements with the resident to attend the propertywith the contractor who did the work on 2 March 2021.
There is brief reference which explains what happened at the inspection by Mr R in March 2021 in an email from the resident to a member of the landlord’s staff (Ms A) on 22 August 2021. This states that Mr R inspected the loft and found the contractor had not spread out all the insulation. The resident also stated that Mr R said he would ensure the contractor returned to complete the work and that he would then inspect the loft again.
In a telephone call with the Ombudsman on 13 March 2023 the resident advised that she had to contact the contractor herself to have to work completed in August 2021.
On 3 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord advising that the contractor had attended to lay insulation in the loft that morning. The resident stated she was advised by the operative that there was “a big patch”, approximately one foot, where light was getting through the roof. She added that the operative had looked at the roof from the other side of the road, and could not see any tiles missing, and would report the matter back to the landlord. She was therefore hoping that the surveyor could ensure that someone came out to have a look as she was concerned water would get through. The landlord responded on 4 August 2021 confirming that it had asked the contractor for further information, and that it would arrange a repair if required.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 August 2021. It advised that the contractor had responded that “there was some light (about 6 inch x 1 inch) coming through under one of the roof tiles. Our operative went up onto the roof and investigated and explained to the tenant that it’s where the sun was shining through under the tile but there are no issues and no follow on works required”. The landlord added that it hoped that this explanation provided the resident with some assurance.
The resident responded the same day to express dissatisfaction with the contractor’s comments. She said the contractor was “lying” and had given her a different account of its findings to what it told the landlord. The resident said that she wished for Mr R to investigate the matter further, as she did not believe that light should be coming through a brand new roof. She added that the contractor had not spread all of the lagging, as had been instructed by Mr R.
The landlord made further enquiries with the contractor to find out details about daylight coming through the resident’s roof between 5 and 12 August 2021. On 11 August 2021 the resident chased a response from the landlord by email.
On 12 August 2021 the contractor confirmed to the landlord that the roof was in “perfect condition” and watertight. It explained the light coming through was due to the position of the sun at the time of the observation. This was because it was at eye level with the overlap of the tiles. It also explained that the roof had a modern breathable felt which allowed some light to get through as it was opaque. However, there were no holes or perforations in the roof. It also stated the additional packs of insulation had been surplus therefore were removed. The landlord subsequently relayed this message to the resident on the same day.
The resident replied on 12 August 2021. She said that she was not satisfied with what the contractor had told the landlord. She said that she believed the contractor had lied about the condition of the roof and reiterated her request for Mr R to attend the property.
On 13 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it would not be sending out a representative to inspect the roof because it was satisfied with the consultation it had completed with the contractor. It advised that on receipt of the contractor’s comments, it was satisfied that the roof did not require specific investigation, and that it was watertight. It added that it would be monitoring the roof renewal works as standard process, in line with its warranty period.

Landlord’s decision not to raise a complaint

The resident responded on the same day. She listed her concerns and asked for the matter to be treated as a formal complaint. She said:
1. The contractor advised her further investigations were needed to see why light was coming through the roof.
2. The contractor had said that light should not be coming through the roof.
3. Mr R had said he would inspect the work once done in August 2021. However, he had not attended.
4. Following the work, the contractor removed more packs of unused insulation, which should have been spread in the loft.
5. She felt she was being refused access to Mr R, despite the fact that he had told them he was happy to communicate about the works.
The landlord responded to the resident on 16 August 2021, which was a response to the request for a formal complaint and an email raised on 4 August 2021 (addressed later in this report). It said that it would not be raising a complaint about its handling of the roofing works. It said this was in accordance with section 1.6 of its complaints policy, which stated that it would not accept complaints where issues were “being pursued in an unreasonable manner”. The landlord advised that it had provided the resident with full answers about the roof, and her request to raise a complaint was therefore an example of an issue being pursued in an unreasonable manner.

The landlord’s communication with the resident including comments she had been ‘vexatious and persistent’

The resident had raised a complaint with the landlord in 2020 about an unrelated matter and it was escalated to the landlord’s stage 3 process. Stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints policy gave the resident the opportunity to have her complaint heard by a panel consisting of various board members. The complaint was considered by the landlord’s panel on 3 September 2020.
The stage 3 report referred to the volume of contact the resident had with the landlord. It established that the volume and persistence of contact was difficult to manage and therefore referred to Ms A being identified as a single point of contact. Although, at the stage of the panel report it made reference to this channel only being for formal complaints. It did not offer any further details to clarify the type of communication that the resident may submit, and in later correspondence it became clear the landlord was accepting more generic types of enquiry from the resident.
On 16 June 2021 the resident exchanged email correspondence with Ms A regarding the communal garden, and on 26 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord regarding a parking survey that had been conducted. The landlord responded on 2 July 2021 acknowledging receipt and thanked the resident for the response.
On 22 July 2021 the resident sent an email to a number of people including media outlets. Within her email, she asked if Ms A could advise what had happened to Mr R. The resident said that she wished to know whether Mr R had left, whether he was unwell, or if he had been told that he should not contact her. The resident explained that Mr R had “no problem” with her discussing works required at the scheme with him, and she therefore wanted to know what had happened to him.
The resident also addressed the use and implementation of a single point of contact. She said that she had stuck to the agreement, but Ms A had not always replied. The resident said she had a number of queries on behalf of other residents about works that were required and being carried out across the scheme. She added that she had copied a media outlet into her email, so she could show it “how neglected” the estate was.
The resident chased the matter by email on 4 August 2021. Ms A replied on the same day and advised that she had not been included in the list of addressees within the email of 22 July 2021. As such, she could not be held accountable for not replying. Ms A advised that she would not share such information with customers about a member of staff, and personal questioning about a member of staff in a public setting was not acceptable. Ms A advised that she would consider the resident’s email in full; but also noted that other members of staff had already been in touch with her about some aspects of the works across the scheme.
Ms A responded in full to the resident’s email on 16 August 2021. She said:
1. In her last email, she had queried the appropriateness of the resident’s request for contact with Mr R, and the manner it was being made. She had also explained that the resident had been asking questions of a “potentially personal nature” in a very public way, which she felt was unacceptable.
2. Since her last email, she had been made aware that the resident had made three further requests to contact Mr R.
3. It was not just the number of emails that the resident was sending, but that she was creating “a personal issue where one did not exist”. Ms A added that the landlord had been trying to deliver information to all residents in a transparent, impartial and consistent manner.
4. The information that the resident was seeking had already been provided by another member of staff.
5. The requests to deal with Mr R seemed to be less about requiring information on progress, but seemed “more about having individual one to one contact” with the project lead.
6. She also wished to flag the “level and nature” of the resident’s requests. She considered that the “ongoing demands” that the resident was making for Mr R to be a source of direct contact was unacceptable. Not only because the resident had been asking for a level of contact that was not acceptable, but because she was also asking Mr R to become involved in work that was not within his role.
7. Despite being advised that her contact and demands were unacceptable, the resident had persisted to contact Mr R directly. Ms A stated she “believed this to be bordering on harassment and intimidation”.
8. The resident’s contact with the landlord fell under its definition of ‘”vexatious and persistent’ contacts”, under section 2.43 of it complaints policy. This included contacts or complaints that took up a “disproportionate amount of time” by:

a. Persisting unreasonably with complaints or other matters.

b. Making serial complaints about different matters.

c. Continuing to raise the same or similar matters over and over again.

d. An excessive number of contacts made about an issue.

e. Harassing or being rude or aggressive to staff or contractors.

f. Unreasonably contacting (or threatening to contact) the media.

The resident should use the same methods of communication that were open to all of its residents, and provided the two specific email address that should be used. It was added that any requests to these addresses would be acknowledged and responded to by the right contact “within any existing service standards”.
If the resident’s contacts continued to be sent, and received, as per its definition of “vexatious and persistent” it would look to restrict future contact to a single channel/person for all contact and agree specific timeframes for responses”.

The resident replied immediately stating:
1. She had not been aggressive to anyone and felt such comments from the landlord were defamation of character.
2. She would no longer communicate with Mr R. However, he should not have informed her that he was “always at the end of the phone”, and that she should not have been given his mobile number.
3. She believed the contractor to be lying about the condition of the roof; and she disputed the information it had provided to the landlord.
4. She had not threatened anyone with the media, but that she – and other tenants – had a right to expect jobs to be carried out properly.
5. Landlord’s staff needed “lessons in relationships” with tenants, and for training regarding their communication because they could be misleading in its communication with residents.
6. Other residents had asked her to speak up for them. Having done so, she was “falsely accused of being aggressive”. The panel did not think this was the case when her stage three complaint was considered. In addition, the panel had found that she had been let down by the landlord, and that the complaint would help it in improving its internal policies and processes.
The resident wrote to Ms A again on 22 August 2021. Within her email, the resident explained that she had taken the time to review the response further, and had also copied in this Service and a media outlet as she considered that she was being “singled out” as a tenant. She said:
1. She was querying Mr R’s whereabout because she was concerned for him and she had been told she could contact him anytime. She maintained contact with him out of courtesy.
2. She denied expecting more privileged contact from Mr R.
3. She denied making demands for Mr R to return to carry out an inspection, rather this was something he had offered to do.
4. Ms A had stated that she had already been given an answer about the roofing works. This was not correct. The previous response they had received was dismissive, and at odds with what the contractor had told them. She was concerned that the contractor had lied to the landlord; and that it did not want to look bad given that it had fitted the roof.
5. She felt the landlord was breaking the law by not accepting a formal complaint
6. She denied being aggressive to staff and stated that if staff “were not so dismissive of tenants” they would not have to make repeated complaints.
7. The landlord was responsible for maintaining the properties, and it had allowed them to fall into a state of “great disrepair”. She had stated previously that she was happy to show media around the estate to highlight the issues, and that she was being treated as a “trouble maker”.
8. Ms A had advised that if her contacts continued, the landlord would look to restrict future contact to a single channel. The landlord had already done this, and Ms A had been appointed as her point of contact.
9. She was fearful of raising any further complaints as she believed the landlord was victimising her.
On 7 September 2021 Ms A emailed the resident to acknowledge her comments. Ms A added that while the resident’s comments had been noted, it wished to confirm two points:
1. It would not be raising a complaint regarding the roof works. It believed the resident’s wish to have the matter raised as a complaint was an example of an “issue being pursued in an unreasonable manner”.
2. It wished to ensure that the resident stayed fully informed about issues relating to the scheme, as any other customer. All it was asking the resident to do was to use the same communication channels that were open to other residents. It would always keep in mind any new, reasonable complaint that the resident had.
On 14 September 2021 the resident emailed Ms A. She said that she was hoping to pot some winter plants but did not know whether to go ahead as she was unsure when external work was starting. The resident asked if, as her single point of contact, Ms A could find out for her.
Ms A responded on 22 September. She expressed that she was the resident’s ‘point of contact’ previously. She asked the resident if she could direct her enquiry using the two specific emails addresses that were provided in her email of 16 August 2021.
On 21 September 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord’s improvements team. She asked for an update about planned works that were due to take place, and if the landlord was re-tendering for the works. And if so, what that meant for the other residents who had been assured that the works would be completed in December 2021.
The landlord responded on 21 September 2021. It provided the resident with information on the consultation period and timeframe for completion of works. It added that all communication would be shared with all customers prior to the project commencing, and during the works. It asked if the resident could await further communication so that it could ensure consistency with the communication being shared with its residents.
The resident acknowledged the landlord’s response on the same day, and advised that she had it in writing that the works would be completed by December 2021. She said that the response was “no more than what it expected” from the landlord, and that she would await further communication.
In December 2021 the resident confirmed that she wished for this Service to investigate her concerns. She said that her complaint was about the service and communication she had received from the landlord, its handling of the roof repairs, and its handling of her complaint about the matter. The resident added that she was unhappy that the landlord had accused her of being aggressive, and that this was “defamation” of her “good character”.
The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman on 12 April 2022 with an overview document, providing information about the single point of contact. It advised the volume of the resident’s communication was becoming difficult to manage and the single point of contact communications channel was initially there to reduce this. It said that despite this measure being put in place the resident did not keep to the arrangement. The landlord then wanted the resident to use two specific and generic email address to raise concerns.
This Service contacted the resident in March 2023, to discuss her outstanding concerns and whether any further inspections or repairs to the roof area had been carried out since 2021. In response, the resident said:
1. She did not know whether Mr R observed the hole in the roof when the area was inspected in March 2021.
2. She had not received any contact from either Mr R or the contractor since the inspection in March 2021. In order to get the work complete, the resident chased contractor directly herself.
3. She had seen the hole in the roof area herself. She was also unhappy that the contractor had taken bags of insulation away, although she noted that the contractor considered that the insulation it had laid was deep enough.
4. The landlord had not done any further work to the roof, or conducted any inspections. The job had not been assigned to an alternative surveyor.
5. The landlord had not taken any further action in relation to the “vexatious and persistent” complainers route.
6. She had not been aggressive, but assertive. She also explained that she had suffered stress and anxiety due to the landlord’s behaviour, which led to various medical issues being exacerbated.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Part B.4 of the tenancy agreement lists the landlord’s obligations which include “to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including: the roof”.
The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments policy (‘Complaints policy’) states “we define a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its the half, affecting an individual resident or a group of residents”.
Part 1.6 of the Complaints policy sets out what the landlord will not accept as a complaint. This includes “issues being pursued in an unreasonable manner”.
Part 2.43 the Complaints policy states “A small minority of customers make complaints and/or contacts that take up a disproportionate amount of time and can often be distressing for both parties; this may involve [Not an exhaustive list]:
1. Persisting unreasonably with complaints or other matters.
2. Making serial complaints about different matters.
3. Continuing to raise the same or similar matters over and over again.
4. An excessive number of contacts made about an issue.
5. Harassing or being rude or aggressive to staff or contractors.
6. Attempting to or actually bypassing our process is and/or contacting multiple members of staff about the same issue(s).
7. Changing the basis of the complaint as the investigation proceeds.
8. Unreasonably contacting (or threatening to contact) the media”.
The landlord’s repairs policy classifies, under part 14 – repair priority times – “Routine/non-urgent: The contractor will respond within 20 days”.
The landlord’s repairs policy states under part 21 – Post Inspections – “[the landlord] aims to carry out post inspections on all work over £1000 in value. [The landlord’s] surveyors and contractors regularly meet and hold progress meetings to review work to ensure standards are met.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the roof repair

The resident made contact with the landlord in February 2021 to report an issue with silverfish and to ask about an outstanding inspection to the loft and the roof.In response,the landlord arranged for its surveyor to attend the property.
The resident stated the inspection was carried out by Mr R on 2 March 2021 in her email to Ms A on 22 August 2021.The resident stated Mr R identified that the contractor had not completely laid all of the loft insulation and stated this needed to be done. She also added that Mr R advised he would return to sign off the work when it was completed.
There was a delay between the landlord identifying that the loft insulation needed to be attended to in March 2021, and the work being completed by the contractor in August 2021. Records provided do not confirm why there was a delay.
The landlord’s repair policy states that it will respond to routine or non-urgent repairs within 20 days. The policy does not state when repairs should be completed. However, the delay between outstanding work being identified in March 2021 and being completed in August 2021 (6 months) was an excessive period for the work not to be completed.
The landlord’s contractor attended to carry out the insulation works in August 2021. The resident said that the operative informed her that there was light coming through the roof (an approximate 6 x 1 inches), and that he would report the matter back to the landlord. The landlord subsequently sought clarification from the contractor, and it advised that while there was light coming through the roof, there was “no issue”. It is noted that the resident disagreed with the information that was relayed to the landlord. While the resident had quoted a gap of approximately 1 foot, the contractor is noted as saying “there was some light (about 6 inch x 1 inch)”. It also stated its operative inspected this by going on the roof. However, the resident communicated her disagreement by stating the contractor was lying and had given a different account of what had happened.
Part 21 of the landlord’s repairs policy (‘Inspections’) states “[the landlord] aims to carry out post inspections on all work over £1000 in value”. There is no documentation clarifying the cost of the roof work. However, in the absence of that information it is reasonable to conclude that an inspection would have been appropriate because:
1. The landlord agreed in writing in February 2021 that it needed to sign off the work.
2. The new roof works were likely to have cost more than £1000.
In its email on 13 August 2021 to the resident the landlord communicated two key things:
1. Its satisfaction of the condition of the roof based on enquiries it made with the contractor.
2. It was refusing an inspection based on the contractor’s comments about the condition of the roof.
It is unclear why the landlord changed its position with regards to the inspection given that it arranged one initially (March 2021) and states it aims to do this within the remit of its policy. The landlord did mention to the resident that it would monitor under the “roof renewal works as standard process in line with our warranty period”. However, it did not explain clearly to the resident what this meant. It could be that this was a reasonable measure by the landlord to consider the condition of the roof but it missed an opportunity to communicate clearly to the resident the extent of what this would entail. Had it done so it could have addressed some of the resident’s concerns.
The resident and contractor gave the landlord differing accounts of what transpired during the August appointment. While it was reasonable for the landlord to obtain the contractor’s view on two occasions, it is unclear why the landlord did not inspect the area for itself once it was clear that these accounts significantly differed. An inspection would have resolved the situation whereby it had to choose between either party’s account, and would have allowed the landlord to satisfy itself that the roof works had been appropriately completed. The landlord also knew that the contractors had already reattended to rectify incomplete works earlier that year, and it knew it had not signed off the roof works although these works were significant. Considering these factors, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not conduct a further inspection of the roof.

Landlord’s decision not to raise a complaint

The resident made a request for a formal complaint on 13 August 2021, highlighting a number of issues she wished to be addressed. These issues concerned the newly identified issue with the roof (what was considered to be a hole letting through light), the outstanding inspection and that she perceived to be being refused access to Mr R.
Under part 1.6 of its complaint policy the landlord rejected the resident’s request for a formal complaint on the basis it perceived the resident to be pursuing the complaint in an unreasonable manner.
In doing so the landlord quoted its reasons for this, in an email on 16 August 2021, by stating that the resident had “full answers being provided” with regards to the roof enquiries. The majority of this email response detailed why the landlord was rejecting other elements of the resident’s complaint and set out its perceived conduct of the resident. The landlord addressed the “public questioning” of a staff member’s personal circumstances, the frequency and direct contact with this staff member and stated what it perceived was bordering on harassment and intimidation. It also set out its expectations on how the resident was to communicate with the landlord, and advised the resident of the vexatious and persistent complainants policy.
The landlord based its conclusions regarding the condition of the roof on the comments from its contractor and its position that it would not inspect the roof deviated from its position in early 2021. However, it did not elaborate further on this position in its response. The landlord also didn’t address the resident’s concerns that the contractor’s version of events differed to her own recollection, that not all of the insulation had been laid in the roof space, and that she had expected a post-works inspection to be completed, but it had not been. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have responded to these points of complaint, and it was inappropriate that the landlord rejected the complaint about the roof, considering that the matters had been pursued unreasonably, when answers to these issues remained outstanding.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that “Landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action”.
Overall, while it may not have been unreasonable for the landlord to have rejected elements of the formal complaint request, the resident’s concerns about the roof were unresolved and partially unaddressed. The landlord applied its policy, that the complaint was being pursued in an unreasonable manner, hastily and too broadly in relation to the complaint about the roof.

The landlord’s communication with the resident including comments she had been ‘vexatious and persistent’

The resident was appointed a single point of contact (Ms A) following the stage 3 tenant panel (3 September 2020) for a previous complaint. The landlord expressed that the resident was a “persistent tenant” who contacted multiple people via multiple methods (Hub, Facebook, Email etc). It indicated there was a “lead person” responsible for consolidating information and resolving confusion who had “previously” been in place. This indicates there was no longer such a person available to carry out this function. The report also acknowledged Ms A’s comments that “it is very rare that a stage 1 complaint is assigned to a Director, but due to the volume and persistence of contact from [the resident], it was agreed that this would be responded to by [Ms A]”.
The landlord has provided a summary document to this Service which covers 23 September 2020 until 13 April 2021. The purpose of the document is to establish the number of contacts the resident had made to the landlord. It lists:
1. telephone calls totalling 138 minutes.
2. 115 text messages.
3. 193 messages sent via WhatsApp including 105 photos and one video.
4. 79 emails.
While this level of written contact appears significant, it is not known what the emails related to and whether this was proportionate to the matters raised and engagement of staff.
The landlord’s overview document, supplied on 12 April 2022, states the following key points:
1. That the ‘single point of contact’ communication channel was created to deal with the volume of contacts the resident was making.
2. It used the single point of contact because the resident was contacting staff directly as opposed to the centralised hubs.
3. The single point of contact was to raise concerns but became a channel to raise general comments.
4. The single point of contact was also suggested because the resident’s communication could be viewed as “vexatious and persistent” and use of this saw a reduction initially.
5. It wanted to direct the resident to central channels.
The description in the stage 3 panel report is brief but refers to Ms A responding to stage 1 complaints. The comments in the overview document suggest that the single point of contact could be used by the resident for issues beyond the scope of stage 1 complaints, and it is clear that the resident did not use the single point of contact as a channel for raising formal complaints only. The correspondence between the resident and Ms A in June and July 2021 about seemingly generic issues also demonstrates that Ms A did not regard herself as being single point of contact solely for the purpose of stage 1 complaints.
It is therefore clear that while the stage 3 panel intended for Ms A to be a single point of contact for complaints, there is little indication that the landlord clarified this with the resident during 2021, or that it consistently directed her through more appropriate channels prior to August 2021. Ms A herself raised the point that Mr R had engaged in communication and shared his number with her, but this was not directly addressed by the landlord.
The landlord’s position on which channel of communication it wanted the resident to use was unclear and evidently changed throughout 2021 without being appropriately communicated. While the landlord advised that single staff members should not be emailed, it did not clearly communicate to the resident until its response of 16 August 2021 that she should only submit contact to general email addresses and not the single point of contact.
The resident’s email of 22 July 2021, which she addressed to multiple members of staff and a media outlet and raised questions about Mr R’s circumstances, appears to be the catalyst for the landlord choosing to express the vexatious and persistent complainants procedure to the resident in August 2021. The landlord’s decision to refer to the resident’s contact as “vexatious and persistent” in response to her emails about Mr R was not unreasonable. The landlord provided a definition of vexatious and persistent contact in line with its policy, which included “unreasonably contacting…the media” and “persisting unreasonably with complaints or other matters”. The landlord set out the contact that it considered fell within the definition under its policy, which included contacting Mr R while matters could be addressed by other staff, and making requests for potentially personal information in a public way (copying in various staff members and the media). The landlord’s position here was reasonable.
The landlord also acted reasonably by warning the resident of its intent to apply the procedure in future if she continued to communicate in the same way, rather than implementing contact restrictions immediately.
However, the landlord’s warning in August 2021 that it would implement a single point of contact was unclear. This is because it had already appointed a single point of contact and there is no indication that this arrangement had ceased by that time. Introducing it as a consequence under the procedure was confusing to the resident, as evidenced by her raising this point with the landlord in further correspondence. In response to the resident’s query, in September 2021, the resident was advised Ms A had been her single point of contact “previously”. This was a missed opportunity to clarify past existing contact arrangements, and why the single point of contact arrangement had changed.
While the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s contact about Mr R was reasonable in line with its policy, its position on contact arrangements, including when a single point of contact should be used,was not consistently communicated or applied throughout its contact with the resident. It is evident that some detriment in the form of distress and confusion was caused in this approach.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the roof repair.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its decision not to raise a complaint in response to the resident’s request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its communication with the resident including comments she had been ‘vexatious and persistent’.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably by failing to complete the work identified by the surveyor in the 2 March 2021 inspection, and the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble by this delay.
The landlord created an expectation for the resident in March 2021 when it agreed the roof work needed to be signed off. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not then return to sign off the roof work that was completed, and it did not reasonably communicate how it could alternatively monitor the roof works under the warranty of the roof.
The landlord behaved unfairly and unreasonably by not accepting the resident’s complaint about the roof repair in August 21 given the information it held at the time. This prevented her from having her complaint about the roof works fairly considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
While the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s contact was not unreasonable in relation to her contact regarding Mr R, it did not confirm any changes in the single point of contact arrangement in place, and caused confusion to the resident in August 2021 by failing to appropriately clarify how the application of a single point of contact would apply differently to existing arrangements.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident a total of £575 compensation, comprised of:

a. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failings identified in its handling of the roof works.

b. £150 for time and trouble and distress and inconvenience for refusing to accept a formal complaint about its handling of the roof repair.

c. £75 for the distress and inconvenience for its failure to communicate appropriately about contact arrangements.

Within four weeks, the landlord must:

a. Confirm to the resident whether a single point of contact remains in place. If so, it should confirm the nature of contact (e.g., enquiries, reports or complaints) which should be directed to this individual, and when this contact arrangement will be reviewed.

b. Consider the failings in this report which relate to the handling of the roof works, and arrange for an inspection of the works. The outcome of this inspection should be shared in writing with the resident and this Service, within two weeks of the inspection.