)
By Dr. Tola Amodu
In an age of budgetary constraint, it is important for all public bodies to be able to deploy their increasingly limited resources wisely to deliver an efficient and effective service to all of their customers. Securing appropriate housing is crucial to the needs of all society, and it is something that is becoming subject to forensic examination, given the growing demands and expectations of all. For many, the provision of adequate housing is seen as a right, if not a necessity. To those most intimately concerned with meeting much more challenging and housing demand – whether allocations, repairs or tenants’ disputes, the reality is more like firefighting.
The idea of “the home” embodies so many facets of existence. It is a refuge, or sanctuary, a personal space and it is often key to physical and mental wellbeing. It is a powerful symbol too, bound up with meanings that may conflict or, at best, are difficult to reconcile. Little wonder then that complaints about “housing” are rising. Recent figures issued by the Housing Ombudsman show that complaints about repairs have risen 474% between 2019-20 to 2024-25, despite some £9bn having been spent on repairs during the same period.[i] Further, statistics suggest that in 2023 the highest number of households were listed on the waiting list for local authority and housing association (also known as private registered providers) since 2014. Perhaps then it is not surprising that there would seem to be a rise in the number of tenants being declared “vexatious”.
The term “vexatious litigant” has a long history. It has been defined by Government as “… [an]individual(s) who persistently take[s] legal action against others in cases without any merit, who are forbidden from starting civil cases in courts without permission”.
The use of the term “vexatious” is often synonymous with the querulent – someone who is a troublesome, “unusually persistent complainer, obsessively driven in pursuit of justice to the extent of morbidity (illness), who plagues complaints bodies and courts. Querulants use a disproportionate amount of resources”.
This may sound all too familiar to those dealing with tenants’ concerns on a daily basis. However, having access to (in)appropriate housing can exacerbate predispositions towards poor physical and mental wellbeing, and it is known that many of the most vulnerable, having complex co-morbidities, fall within the groups classified as being in need of housing. Little wonder then that housing providers see often, some falling within the group as “the usual suspects” who are making ostensibly unreasonable demands on scarce and precious resources.
It is noticeable that the Housing Ombudsman, in its guidance recognises the need to manage unacceptable behaviours, but shies away from the term ‘vexatious’ (suggesting that it is, in effect an inflammatory term). Yet, this remains common parlance, which clients often use themselves, especially when they feel that their grievances are genuine but being ignored. From a legal perspective, it is important to distinguish between the irritating customer who might cause organisational discomfort to the housing provider from those intent on maximizing adverse impacts or acting with malevolence. It is only the latter whose complaints should be marshalled or confined – and even then the threshold for doing so should be high.
Public providers are subject to the principles of public law and should act in a fair, proportionate and reasonable way, if they wish to avoid the prospect of judicial challenge. More importantly, the same bodies are subject to the duties contained in the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates the Convention rights expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights, into domestic law. These include a right to a fair trial (Article 6), respect for private and family life (at Article 8), the prohibition against discrimination at Art 14 (often used in conjunction with the right to freedom of expression) and the protection of property at Article One of the First Protocol to the Convention. This, in conjunction with the Equality Act 2010 provisions (more generally prohibiting discriminatory behaviours), makes it imperative that providers assess whether the steps they take to attenuate complaints are proportionate in the given context and that they document at the time clearly their reasons for doing so, if they are to protect themselves from either complaints to the Housing Ombudsman or more importantly the possibility of legal challenge. In such an emotionally charged context, it is not a matter of if, but when, such a challenge will be brought. It might seem that the expedient route is to close down complaints that appear taxing or tiresome. However, the consequences of doing so could be severe in the extreme.
Parliament is increasingly recognising how interconnected housing is with other problems. For example, in its recent House of Commons Library briefing paper discussed the link between domestic abuse and housing support. There remains much to be done to embed social care needs into housing policy. This is an approach that may arguably be a more constructive to resolving what seem to be intractable problems rather than resorting to the “vexatious” route.
[i] Repairs | Housing Ombudsman