Wolverhampton City Council (202209800)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209800

Wolverhampton City Council

14 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for:
    1. Call backs under the single point of contact arrangement (SPOC); and
    2. the removal of its SPOC.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local authority. The property is a one-bedroom flat. The resident has a number of vulnerabilities.
  2. Following a meeting between the landlord and the resident, a SPOC was formalised on 16 January 2019. This was because of the large number of calls, and their length, that the resident was making to the landlord.
  3. The SPOC arrangement consisted of a telephone call to the resident by his tenancy officer each week on a Thursday, limited to a maximum of 15 minutes, its purpose being to enable the resident to raise any non-urgent matters regarding his tenancy during the call. However, should an emergency – an urgent repair or incident of anti-social behaviour towards the resident – arise, he was to call the landlord, in the same way as any other resident. The landlord reviewed the SPOC in February 2020 and decided that it should continue.
  4. On 28 October 2021, the resident made an initial complaint about the SPOC, stating that he had not received promised call backs. The landlord issued its stage one response on 10 November 2021 in which it apologised for incorrect information given. The resident requested to escalate the complaint as he felt the nature of the call had been an emergency and warranted a call back within 24 hours.
  5. In November 2021, an internal meeting was held by the landlord to discuss its concerns about the calls that continued to be made and it decided that the SPOC would remain in place. Between 17 November and 30 November 2021, the resident rang the landlord’s solicitor numerous times expressing dissatisfaction with the stage one response. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 18 November 2021. The landlord issued its stage two response on 16 December 2021. It reiterated that incorrect information had been given.
  6. The resident made a request to remove the SPOC on 13 January 2022 and then also on 25 May 2022. The landlord responded on both occasions that it was not appropriate to remove it at this stage because of the large number of calls that continued to be made. The resident made a new complaint on 15 July 2022 about the SPOC and again requested its removal. The landlord subsequently provided a further stage one response on 2 August 2022 in which it declined to remove the SPOC. The resident escalated the complaint and a stage two response was issued on 10 August 2022, stating it had fully investigated the complaint, there was no new evidence to consider, and providing information about the referral rights to this Service.
  7. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the stage two response. He had referred the complaint to this Service on 8 August 2022, in which he stated that he felt the SPOC placed an unfair restriction on him and, as a resolution to his complaint, it should be removed.

Assessment and findings

Unreasonable complainant behaviour policy

  1. The landlord defines unreasonable persistent complainants as those complainants who, because of the nature or frequency of their contacts with an organisation, hinder the organisation’s consideration of their, or other residents’, complaints. Such complainants may use abusive or foul language either on the telephone or in person and may leave multiple voicemails. The complainant may impose excessive demands on the time and resources of staff.
  2. The landlord’s policy for handling such complainants is to place a limit on the number and duration of contacts with staff per week or per month, likely by way of a SPOC, but only as a last resort after less stringent measures have been taken. The landlord must consider physical and/or mental health which may explain such behaviour.
  3. The landlord’s policy states a date for review of a SPOC as typically being after six months and not longer than 12 months, but in exceptional cases, this may be extended. In such exceptional cases, restrictions would then be reviewed on a quarterly basis.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for call backs under the single point of contact arrangement (SPOC)

  1. The landlord had an obligation to adhere to the terms of the SPOC and signpost the resident with correct information regarding call backs. If the landlord has said it will do something, it should follow through. If it was unable to do so, it should inform the resident as soon as possible.
  2. Between 25 October and 27 October 2021, the resident made a number of calls to the landlord in relation to his tenancy. On one occasion, the resident was informed by a member of the landlord call centre that he would receive a call back within 24 hours from his tenancy officer. On a separate occasion, he did not get a call back from a team leader when one had been requested. The resident made the calls as he felt there was a threat to his safety.
  3. The landlord investigated the issues, and this Service has seen evidence that the landlord considered carefully whether there was a credible threat to the resident’s safety. The Ombudsman appreciates that it was frustrating for the resident to have been provided with incorrect information, but the landlord did promptly investigate his concerns and provided its stage one and two responses in a timely fashion, including an apology for the service provided. The landlord also reminded its staff of the arrangements in relation to this resident to prevent it from happening again.
  4. This Service considers that the landlord complied with its obligation to ensure the safety of the resident and has demonstrated that it has put things right and has learned from the outcomes. As such, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of complaints in respect of call backs.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the removal of its single point of contact arrangement (SPOC)

  1. The landlord had an obligation under the SPOC arrangement to adhere to its terms and to review the SPOC after 12 months and then on a quarterly basis. It also had an obligation under its policy to respond to urgent repair and anti-social behaviour issues in a reasonable timeframe.
  2. Having reviewed the evidence available, despite the SPOC being in place, the resident continued to make calls to the landlord call centre and was frequently advised to abate his conduct. This Service has seen evidence of voicemail transcripts in which the resident used foul language, which is unacceptable. The resident’s excessive number of calls to the landlord was undeniably challenging for its staff, and would have likely had an impact on its resources.
  3. The resident first requested the removal of the SPOC on 13 January 2022. On 31 January 2022, the landlord set out that it was concerned that the removal of the agreement would result in a return to multiple, lengthy phone calls. It reiterated the benefit of the SPOC in that the resident receives a regular and dedicated weekly call and that the SPOC will remain under review.
  4. In May 2022, the resident again requested to remove the SPOC. The landlord responded on 29 June 2022 explaining the SPOC arrangement was in place because of the number and length of telephone calls that the resident continued to make to the landlord and considered that the resident receives a dedicated and consistent level of contact. The landlord further stated that messages were passed onto the relevant teams which caused no detriment to the resident. This was not unreasonable.
  5. While the landlord asserts that it reviewed the SPOC in November 2021, and again in January, June and August 2022 it has not provided this Service with any evidence of the reviews. The Ombudsman has been unable to see that the landlord undertook an annual, six-monthly, or quarterly review to adequately consider whether the SPOC arrangement was still fair. It appears that the landlord only wrote in response to the resident, to decline his requests for removal. This was inappropriate and was contrary to the process set out in the landlord’s policy.
  6. Further, following the resident’s request to remove the SPOC in January 2022, this Service has seen evidence that he modified his behaviour and made significantly fewer non-urgent calls to the landlord. There is no evidence to suggest the landlord gave this fair consideration and demonstrated that it recognised this.
  7. With consideration of this matter as a whole, while it appears that the landlord had good reason to put in place an arrangement, this Service is not satisfied that it managed the arrangement in line with its policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have undertaken a formal review of the resident’s circumstance, communicating what it had considered, the decision it had arrived at, and why it had made such a decision. Due to the absence of this, the Ombudsman has determined that there was a service failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for call backs under the SPOC.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ request for the removal of its SPOC.

Orders

  1. The landlord must:
    1. pay the resident £100 for its failing to carry out quarterly reviews of the SPOC in line with its unreasonable complainant behaviour policy.
    2. undertake a formal review of the SPOC and communicate the decision to both the resident and this Service with an explanation for the decision .
    3. provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.