Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202003572)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003572

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

27 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. reports regarding the conduct of the landlord’s employee;
   2. reports regarding parking enforcement and works;
   3. reports regarding repairs to a communal door;
   4. request for information regarding her service charge;
   5. request for the window cleaning schedule, lift maintenance schedule, and for grounds maintenance;
   6. concerns regarding its complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has been a shared ownership leaseholder of the property of the landlord since 28 March 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy notes that it will aim to acknowledge a complaint within five working days, provide a stage one response within 10 working days following its acknowledgement of the complaint, and a stage two response within 20 days “following a full investigation.”
4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. The policy notes that for a “failure of service” or for “time and trouble,” it can offer from £51-£150 for a “medium failure.” It can also offer up to £150 for “poor complaint handling.” The policy describes ‘medium failure’ as a “failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy,” or “a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes.”
5. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that the landlord is responsible for the interior communal parts of the building. The policy also notes that when a repair is reported, the landlord will inform residents of what steps it will take and what timeframe it will do them in. It further notes that routine repairs will be carried out within 28 calendar days.

Summary of events

6. On 15 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord with a detailed list of complaints covering a number of issues. The following is a summary of the complaints made:
   1. the resident advised that throughout her correspondence with the landlord regarding the various issues she was experiencing, she was dissatisfied with the level of service she had received. She also advised the landlord’s responses made her feel like “I am a nuisance for raising concerns”;
   2. regarding resident parking at her building, she noted she had reported to the landlord’s ‘estate coordinator’ on 15 May 2019 that residents of other buildings in the complex were parking in her assigned space. The resident has included text from her correspondence to the landlord and also from the landlord’s replies, however, this service has not been provided copies of the original correspondence. The landlord’s estate coordinator replied on 24 May 2019 and advised he had been “checking the space daily” and that “each time I find the space empty.” He further advised that should he find a car in her space, he would only be able to put a note on it and there “isn’t a great deal else we can do.” He also advised that the landlord intended to introduce “parking control” in the future, but that he would put up posters in the building in the meantime. The resident advised that the signs did not go up for a further four days, and she was dissatisfied the signs did not go up immediately. She also advised, however, that “as soon as the sign was put up, I had no further issues”;
   3. the resident also advised that she was dissatisfied with the communication from the landlord’s estate coordinator. She noted that on 19 November 2019, building work commenced at the car park which resulted in some spaces being unusable. This in turn had resulted in other residents parking in her allocated parking space. She also noted that a letter was sent to all residents advising work would be commencing, but that this was sent on the same day and she was dissatisfied with the short notice. Having expressed her concerns to the landlord’s estate coordinator, she advised that he responded by saying “someone parking in your bay has nothing to do with me.” The resident further advised that she considered this response to be unprofessional and rude, and that it had left her shocked and upset. She further noted that she had forwarded her concerns to the estate coordinator’s manager, who had subsequently offered an apology for the short notice;
   4. regarding the service charges, the resident noted she had received a request for payment for the year 2018/2019, but that as she had only moved to the building in March 2019, she was concerned that she was being requested to pay for an amount she did not owe. She advised she had reported her concern to the landlord on 30 September 2019, but that she did not receive a response until the end of October 2019. She noted the landlord had accepted the request for payment had been “a mistake and that an amendment would be posted to me,” but that she was still awaiting further correspondence, despite sending a request for an update on 25 February 2020. As noted above, this service has not been provided with the original copies of the correspondence referred to in the complaint. She further advised that the lack of clarity had caused her “immense stress”;
   5. the resident also expressed her concern that the landlord’s most recent request for estimated service charges for the year 2020/2021 had increased by over 100%. She advised she had compared her estimate to that of her neighbours, who had a larger property than hers, and noted her estimate was significantly higher. She subsequently requested an explanation as to why this was;
   6. the resident additionally expressed her concern that the ‘sinking fund’ amount of her service charge was greater than she had expected and requested the landlord advise how it calculated this amount;
   7. regarding the building window cleaning, the resident noted she had made a request for information about the window cleaning schedule on 30 November 2019 as she was concerned her balcony glass had not been cleaned. She noted that the landlord’s estate coordinator had advised that cleaning occurred every 3 months, with the most recent carried out in August 2019. The resident advised that subsequently she made three requests for an update (10 December 2019, 7 January 2020 and 26 February 2020) as to when the next cleaning was scheduled before she received a response;
   8. the resident advised that she reported to the landlord’s estate coordinator on 4 November 2019 that a communal door to the building was “intermittently not locking.” She noted that the estate coordinator had replied that he would “report as necessary.” The resident advised that on 5 February 2020, there was an “attempted robbery where someone was trying to force entry into my flat” and that the police subsequently “confirmed that [the faulty door] was the likely point of entry.” The resident advised she reported the door again to the estate coordinator, who in turn advised he had previously assessed the door when previously reported but found that it was working and so had not raised a repair. The resident subsequently advised she was concerned it had not been investigated satisfactorily, given she had advised the fault was intermittent. She advised she then reported the door to the estate coordinator’s manager, who in turn raised a repair, and that she subsequently received conflicting correspondences on 19 and 21 February 2020 noting that the door had been fixed, but also that “the door was not going to be attended to.” She advised she had sought clarity but was yet to receive any further response. On 12 May 2020, the resident again reported that the door was faulty. The landlord responded on the same day that it would report the fault to its maintenance team, but that it was only attending to emergency repairs during COVID-19 restrictions. The resident subsequently expressed her concern that the landlord did not consider the door to be an emergency, and also that delaying in repairs may mean it is no longer covered by the builder’s warranty;
   9. Additionally, the resident noted that on 11 May 2020, she had reported to the landlord that the plants next to her parking space were overgrown, but that they were yet to be attended to.
7. On 24 July 2020, the landlord provided its stage one response. It apologised for its delay in responding, and advised it was “partially upholding your complaint.” Regarding the communication of its estate coordinator, it agreed their “responses did not meet our standards of service.” It advised that the estate coordinator had subsequently been “enrolled on extra training courses and provided with further support when dealing with complaints.” Regarding parking, it advised that the builder undertaking the works had not given it forward notice, and that it had requested it “provide sufficient notice going forward.” It also advised that it had now introduced formal parking enforcement at the resident’s building.
8. Regarding the service charges, the landlord advised its ‘senior service charge officer’ confirmed the estimated charges for the resident were “correct,” but that the estimate for 2020/2021 “was identified as containing errors and is currently under review.” It further advised it would provide the results of this review in writing in August 2020. Regarding the window cleaning, it confirmed that the windows were cleaned every 3 months, but that its window cleaning contractor had not provided it with a schedule of when it would next attend due to the COVID-19 restrictions. Regarding the repair to the communal door, it advised that “this was not treated as an emergency as it is a secondary internal door.” It also clarified that its communication in February 2020 that the door had been repaired was correct, and that the further email had been in reference to the resident’s flat door, which required repairs following the attempted break in.
9. The landlord concluded by accepting that many of the issues raised could have been resolved quicker and that the service the resident received “was not of our service standards.” It subsequently offered compensation of £50 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £125 for its service failure.
10. The resident replied on the same date and advised she was not satisfied with the landlord’s response or the amount of compensation offered. She reiterated her concerns about her service charges and that she had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions about this issue but had not received a response. Given that the landlord had now advised that the estimates were incorrect, she also expressed concern that she would be potentially overpaying until the revised figures in August 2020. She also noted that the landlord’s response did not address her complaint about the request for payment of the service charges for the year 2018/2019. Regarding the window cleaning, she reiterated that she did not believe the cleaning had occurred prior to the COVID-19 restrictions, which had not been addressed in the landlord’s response. Regarding the repairs to the door, she accepted that it was not an emergency, but noted that it had “been almost 9 months since the door was reported,” and it had still not been repaired. She also expressed her concerns that additional training was not a sufficient response to her complaint about the landlord’s estate coordinator’s communication. On 27 July 2020, the landlord subsequently advised her complaint was being escalated to stage two.
11. On 21 September 2020, the resident enquired as to when the next window cleaning would occur. The landlord replied on the same date and advised it had requested a schedule from the window cleaning contractor. It also apologised for its delay in issuing its stage two response and sought to arrange a time with the resident to discuss her complaint further.
12. On 1 October 2020, the resident reported that the door was still not working. The landlord subsequently advised it had raised a repair and its repair contractor would carry out the repair. The resident replied that she was concerned that the cost of the repair would now be passed onto the leaseholders as it had not been addressed during the builder’s warranty period.
13. On 5/8 October 2020, the resident requested an update on her complaint, including the amended estimated service charges statement and her request for the window cleaning schedule. She noted she had also requested a copy of the lift maintenance schedule but was yet to receive a response. She also noted she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding its estate coordinator’s communication and that she was yet to receive an apology from them. She further noted that the landlord was yet to respond to her initial complaint that the plants next to her parking space were overgrown.
14. The landlord replied on 8 October 2020 and advised that it would provide its stage two response by the end of October 2020. It also advised it had requested the lift maintenance schedule from its contractor and would provide it in due course. It also agreed that it should provide residents with the window cleaning schedule and said that the contractor would provide it with a schedule for it to share. Regarding the grounds maintenance issues, it advised it had passed on the resident’s comments to its maintenance team to be attended to on their next visit.
15. On 14 October 2020, the landlord provided its stage two response. Regarding the service charges, the landlord advised that it had not yet finalised its investigation as it was waiting on the building insurance revaluation. It advised it would “contact you with an update at the end of October 2020.” Regarding the conduct of its estate coordinator, it reiterated he was undergoing additional training, but that it had also discussed the resident’s concerns with them and that “he has asked us to offer his extended apologies for any distress and inconvenience caused to you.” It also advised the estate coordinator’s manager would oversee his correspondence going forward. It also offered further apologies for the inconvenience caused by the disruption to parking caused by the building works.
16. Regarding the window cleaning, it noted that its window cleaning contractor was happy to share its schedule with residents, and that it would “update you once [it] has received the schedule.” Regarding the repairs to the door, the landlord acknowledged there had been delays to its repairs. It advised its repairs contractor had assessed the door on 10 September 2020 but had determined that a specialist contractor would be required to complete the repair. A specialist contractor assessed the door on 9 October 2020 and noted that the door had been “vandalised and further works are required to straighten the door.” It advised it had subsequently arranged for further repair works to take place on 20 October 2020. It also provided its repairs log for the door to date.
17. The landlord also noted the resident’s request for the lift maintenance schedule and advised it would contact her once received. It further noted that both its stage one and stage two responses had not been provided within the timelines required by its policy. It subsequently offered a revised amount of compensation, being £100 for poor complaints handling, £125 for the resident’s time and trouble, and £125 for its service failures.
18. The resident replied on 16 October 2020 and disputed that the door had been “vandalised,” and instead advised she considered it to be a manufacturing defect. She subsequently requested that the landlord refer the cost of repairs back to the builder. On 19 October 2020, the resident further advised she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response or the amount of compensation offered. She also noted that the landlord had still not addressed her concerns over the calculation of the sinking fund. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reply on 22 October 2020 and advised it would respond by 4 November 2020. It is not evident, however, that the landlord responded on this date.
19. The resident subsequently made further requests for updates to her complaint on 30 November 2020, 9 December 2020, 17 December 2020, and 12 February 2021. On 18 February 2021, the landlord advised it intended to put the window cleaning schedule on the building bulletin board. The resident replied on the same date and requested when it would start doing so. It is not evident that the landlord has responded. On 29 March 2021, the landlord advised all residents that it was expecting to provide the updated service charge accounts for the year 2018/2019, as well as an updated estimate to its service charges in April 2021, however, on 21 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and advised the updated estimate was continuing to be delayed by a further investigation.
20. The resident provided a further update to this service on 25 May 2021 advising she is yet to receive the updated service charge estimates, or the window cleaning schedule. Regarding the grounds maintenance issue, she advised that the maintenance team had agreed to install a fence, which it was yet to do. Additionally, regarding the repairs to the communal door, the resident advised the door has been fixed by the manufacturer after she “personally called and arranged visit free of charge as the door is under a 10 year warranty.”

Assessment and findings

Conduct of the landlord’s employee

21. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for parties to correspond with each other in a professional and courteous manner. While this service has not been provided with the original correspondence between the parties during the resident’s initial reports of other residents parking in her allocated space, the landlord has not disputed the content of the correspondence as referred to in the resident’s formal complaint.
22. In its stage one response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the communication of its estate coordinator did not meet its standards of service. It also appropriately advised that it had arranged for further complaints handling training for the estate coordinator. Following the resident’s concerns that additional training might not be sufficient and her dissatisfaction that she had not been offered an apology, it was also appropriate that the landlord set out in its stage two response that the estate coordinator’s manager would be overseeing their communications, and that the resident’s concerns had been discussed with the estate coordinator, following which he had offered an apology.
23. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s apology and explanation of the actions it had taken to address its employee’s behaviour amounts to reasonable redress for the service failure in the circumstances.

 

Parking

24. While it is not evident that parking enforcement was the responsibility of the landlord when initially reported by the resident, the Ombudsman considers it best practice for a landlord to provide reasonable assistance when it receives such reports from residents.
25. Following the resident’s report on 15 May 2019 that another resident was using her parking space, the landlord advised on 24 May 2019 that it had been carrying out inspections of the parking space and had not found the space to be occupied. It subsequently set out its position that it was not able to enforce the parking rules beyond leaving a note, and also advised it would put up posters, which the resident has advised occurred four days later. Notwithstanding the issues with the estate coordinator’s communication as discussed above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially carry out an inspection following the resident’s reports. While the resident was dissatisfied it took the landlord nine days to respond, given it was not an emergency, the Ombudsman considers this timeframe to be reasonable. Similarly, the additional four days to put up the posters was reasonable.
26. The Ombudsman would also expect a landlord to provide reasonable notice to residents prior to any planned building works that cause disruption. While it is not disputed that the landlord advised residents of the works on the day they commenced, the lack of prior notice caused inconvenience to the residents of the building, not least to the resident herself. It was therefore appropriate that the estate coordinator’s manager initially offered an apology and that in its stage one response the landlord advised the resident of the steps it had taken to prevent it occurring again. It was also appropriate that it offered an apology in its stage two response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its failure to give residents advanced notice of the works to the parking area caused the resident distress and inconvenience, and the landlord’s apology, whilst appropriate, did not constitute adequate redress in this case. It is therefore appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. The Ombudsman considers that £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Communal door repair

27. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it is responsible for repairs to the communal parts of the building, and that it will complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days. It also notes it will keep the resident informed of what steps it has taken to investigate the issue and the timeframe for the repairs.
28. While this service has not been provided with copies of the resident’s initial reports regarding the communal door, it is not disputed that this was initially reported on 4 November 2019. While it was appropriate that the landlord’s estate coordinator acknowledged the report and that he subsequently carried out an inspection of the door, it is not evident that they replied to the resident with the outcome of this investigation, or advised that as a result of the investigation they would not be raising any repair works. This would have left the resident unclear as to whether the door was being repaired and led to her having to make further reports.
29. Following her raising the issue again with the estate coordinator’s manager, it was appropriate that they advised that repair works had been raised and it was also appropriate the landlord followed this up with a confirmation on 19 February 2020. While the landlord’s further communication on 21 February 2020 initially caused confusion, the landlord’s explanation in its stage one response that the second communication was in reference to the resident’s flat door was reasonable.
30. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns about the door given the attempted break in at her property, given that the landlord explained in its stage one response that the door in question was an internal door, its decision to not consider it an emergency repair during the COVID-19 restrictions was reasonable and it was appropriate that it gave this advice to the resident on the same day she reported it had a further fault. Additionally, following further reports from the resident in October 2020, it was also appropriate that the landlord advised it had raised a further repair job.
31. In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately set out the actions it had taken and the outcomes of its investigation. While the landlord described the door as “vandalised,” which the resident subsequently disputed, the landlord’s repair log, as included in its stage two response, notes that the door was “damaged” and not specifically ‘vandalised’. It is not evident the landlord intended its communication to indicate there was a specific cause for the damage, but rather that there was damage, which required further works. Given, however, that the resident expressed her concerns about the warranty period of the door and possibility that the cost would now be incurred by the residents, it would have been helpful for the resident had it set out its position on this issue, which it did not do in this instance.
32. It is evident that the landlord’s communication when the door was initially reported was not sufficient, resulting in the resident having to make a number of further enquiries regarding the repair of the door. The landlord appropriately acknowledged this in its formal responses and offered an amount of compensation for the resident’s time and trouble. It also set out in its stage two response the timetable for further repairs, however, following the date on which the repairs occurred, it is not evident that the landlord updated the resident as required by its repairs policy. This caused additional time and trouble to the resident in having to make repeated further requests for updates. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this constitutes further service failure, and it is appropriate that a further amount of compensation be offered. In the circumstances, a total amount of £125 is appropriate.

Service charge

33. Complaints about the amounts of a service charge are outside the jurisdiction of this service, as the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better placed to consider them. As such, this investigation will focus on the communication by the landlord in response to the resident’s concerns regarding the service charge.
34. As noted above, this service has not been provided with copies of the resident’s initial reports regarding the request for payment of the 2018/2019 service charges, however, it is not disputed that following receipt of the request for payment, she reported her concerns on 30 September 2019 that she was not required to pay, and that she did not receive a response until one month later. It is also not disputed that, following the landlord’s confirmation that the request was sent in error and that an amended request would be sent, the resident did not receive a further update despite making a further request.
35. Despite the resident having expressed that the issue had caused her “immense stress,” the landlord did not specifically address the complaint in its stage one response. This would have added to the resident’s distress and caused her further inconvenience in having to chase up the issue, which she did on 24 July 2020. Additionally, following the resident’s request for an escalation of her complaint, it is also not evident that the landlord addressed the issue in its stage two response. While the landlord noted it was investigating its estimated service charges, it is not evident it was reassessing its 2018/2019 service charges until it noted this in its communication to all residents in March 2021. While this indicates it was not in a position to provide the resident with an amended request for payment, the amount of time that elapsed between her initial request, in conjuncture with her multiple requests for an update, constitutes service failure.
36. It is also evident that as part of her initial complaint, the resident requested the landlord provide her with an explanation of how the sinking fund was calculated. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide such information within a reasonable timeframe, however, it is not evident that the landlord addressed this issue in either its stage one or stage two response. Following her further request for this information in October 2020, while the landlord initially advised it would respond in November 2020, it is not evident that it has provided this information in any further communication.
37. Additionally, regarding the resident’s concerns about the increased service charge in its most recent estimate, while the landlord’s stage one response appropriately advised that it was investigating errors in the estimate and set a date for its further response, it is not evident that it provided the resident with an update on the date it had noted. It is also evident that there was some confusion caused by it confirming both that the figures were “correct,” and also that there were errors in the estimate. Given that the resident subsequently expressed her concern that she may be overpaying, it would have been helpful had the landlord provided further clarification on this point, which it did not do at that time.
38. It is also evident that following the landlord’s further advice that it would provide an update by October 2020, it did not subsequently provide an update or give an explanation to the resident as to why there was a delay. This resulted in the resident having to chase up further updates on multiple occasions. While the Ombudsman understands that delays can occur with an investigation into a service charge, it would expect the landlord to keep the resident up to date with any developments, which it is not evident it did in this instance. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delays to the landlord’s communications also constitute service failure, and in conjunction with the service failure regarding the request for payment of the 2018/2019 service charge, it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered.
39. While the landlord’s stage two response makes an offer of compensation in relation to its service failures and the resident’s time and trouble, it is not evident how the amounts are broken down between the complaints. Given the number of occasions the resident had to make requests for updates, the Ombudsman considers that £125 is appropriate in relation to the resident’s time and trouble, and a further £50 is appropriate for its failure to respond to the resident’s complaints regarding the 2018/2019 service charge and the sinking fund.

Window cleaning, lift maintenance schedule, and grounds maintenance

40. While it is not evident that a landlord has an obligation to provide information about the building window cleaning schedule or lift maintenance schedule, the Ombudsman considers it best practice to provide this information to residents where possible.
41. Following the resident’s initial query as to the frequency, it is not disputed that she made three requests over a three-month period for information about the next scheduled cleaning before receiving a response. Given the resident’s previously stated concerns that the cleaning was not occurring, this delay in response would have caused distress to the resident, as well as causing her time and trouble in having to repeatedly chase up a response. The landlord’s stage one response that it was unable to provide a schedule due to the uncertainty of the COVID-19 restrictions was, however, reasonable.
42. Following the resident’s further request for a copy of the schedule in September 2020, it was appropriate that the landlord advised it had requested a schedule and that it would provide it to her in due course. The Ombudsman would, however, expect a landlord who had made such assurances to provide the schedule within a reasonable timeframe, or explain why it was unable to do so, which it is not evident it did in this instance. This would have left the resident unsure if this element of her complaint was being addressed.
43. Similarly, while it was appropriate that the landlord again advised in its stage two response that it would provide a copy of the schedule, it did not set out a timeframe to do so, and it is evident that in February 2021, it still had not provided the schedule or a timescale, despite repeated requests for an update by the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the repeated delays to provide a copy of the schedule following the landlord’s agreement to provide it constitutes a service failure.
44. While not part of the initial complaint, the landlord noted in its stage two response that it had also agreed to provide a copy of its lift maintenance schedule to the resident. It again did not set out a timeframe for it to do this and it is not evident that it has provided this to the resident, despite repeated requests for updates from the resident.
45. Additionally, it is evident that in her initial complaint, the resident raised her concerns about grounds maintenance issues at the property, which the landlord subsequently failed to address in its stage one response. This caused the resident inconvenience in having to raise the issue again. Following the resident reiterating her concerns in October 2020, the landlord appropriately replied that it had passed on the comments to its grounds maintenance team to attend to. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord not to include this part of the complaint in its stage two response.
46. The Ombudsman notes that the resident has subsequently advised the grounds maintenance team agreed to put up a fence, which they are yet to do, however, given that the issue of the fence was not part of the resident’s initial complaint, it is beyond the scope of this investigation.
47. While the level of detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to provide the schedules or respond regarding the grounds maintenance issues is low, the repeated delays in providing her with the information it had promised caused her distress and inconvenience, and it is appropriate that an amount of compensation be offered. The Ombudsman considers that an amount of £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaints handling

48. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that following an initial complaint, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a stage one response within 10 working days following its acknowledgement of the complaint. The landlord’s compensation policy notes it can also award up to £150 for poor complaint handling.
49. The resident initially made her complaint on 15 June 2020. It is not evident if the landlord subsequently acknowledged the complaint. The landlord provided its stage one on 24 July 2020, 29 working days following the initial complaint. Where a complaint response is delayed, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide an update or an explanation as to why there is a delay, however, it is not evident that this occurred.
50. While the landlord appropriately apologised for the delay in its stage one response, it did not provide a reason, nor did it advise its position as to whether any compensation should be offered in relation to the delay.
51. Following the resident’s request that her complaint be escalated, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the request within three days. The landlord’s complaints policy does not give a specific amount of time to carry out a stage two investigation, however, the Ombudsman would expect it to carry out any investigation within a reasonable timeframe. While it was appropriate that it apologised for its delay in providing a stage two response on 21 September 2020, and that it arranged for a further discussion with the resident, it is not evident why its investigation took this amount of time.
52. In its stage two response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that its stage one and stage two responses had been delayed and offered an apology. It also offered £100 for its complaints handling, which was in line with its compensation police and was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable in the circumstances.
53. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has made an offer of £125 for its service failures and a further £125 for the resident’s time and trouble, however, as noted above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the level of service failures and its additional delays in providing updates to the resident require further compensation.

Determination (decision)

54. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports concerning parking enforcement and works;
    2. reports concerning repairs to a communal door;
    3. request for information regarding her service charge;
    4. request for the window cleaning schedule, lift maintenance schedule, and for grounds maintenance.
55. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding:
    1. the resident’s reports concerning the conduct of the landlord’s employee;
    2. the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

Conduct of the landlord’s employee

56. The landlord appropriately accepted that the communications were not in line with the service standards the resident should expect and apologised for the conduct of its estate coordinator. It also appropriately advised they would receive additional training and that their communications would be monitored.

Parking

57. While the landlord’s initial investigation of the unauthorised use of the resident’s parking space and its subsequent issuance of a notice to residents was reasonable, its failure to provide sufficient notice to residents regarding works in the car park caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Communal door repair

58. The landlord failed to advise the resident of the outcome of its investigation following her initial reports regarding the communal door, as required by its repairs policy. Additionally, while it appropriately set out the repair works it had undertaken up to its stage two response, it subsequently failed to keep the resident updated with further repair works, which given the concerns raised by the resident about safety, would have caused her distress.

Service charge

59. It is evident that the resident raised concerns about an amended request for payment of the 2018/2019 service charge, as well as the calculation of the sinking fund in her initial complaint. It is not evident, however, that the landlord addressed this element of the complaint in either its stage one or stage two response, despite repeated requests from the resident.
60. Additionally, while it was reasonable for the landlord to advise it was investigating its estimated service charge prior to being in a position to give the resident an update, it repeatedly missed the timeframes it advised the resident, without giving her an explanation at the time.

Window cleaning, lift maintenance schedule, and grounds maintenance

61. Given that the resident had expressed her concerns that the window cleaning was not occurring and that the landlord had agreed to provide her the maintenance schedule, it failed to set out timeframes to do so, and despite repeated requests from the resident, it had still not provided the schedule four months after its stage two response.
62. Additionally, having agreed to provide the lift maintenance schedule in its stage two response, it is not evident that the landlord has provided it to the resident, despite repeated requests for updates regarding her complaint.
63. It is also evident that the resident noted concerns about grounds maintenance in her initial complaint, which the landlord failed to respond to, causing additional inconvenience to the resident in having to chase it up.

Complaints handling

64. While the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses were delayed beyond the timeframes noted in its complaints policy, it appropriately acknowledged its delays in both responses and offered an apology. It also made an offer of compensation which was in line with its compensation policy and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was reasonable in the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

65. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £400, comprising:
    1. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to communicate the works to the parking area;
    2. £125 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays with communication regarding the repairs to the communal door;
    3. £125 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays with communication regarding the amended estimated service charges;
    4. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaints about the 2018/2019 service charge and the calculation of the sinking fund;
    5. £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays with communication regarding the window cleaning schedule, lift maintenance schedule, and garden maintenance concerns.
66. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £250. This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.
67. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following (if it has not already done so):
    1. a copy of the lift maintenance schedule, or if not to hand, a timeframe for it to provide the schedule;
    2. a copy of the window cleaning schedule, or if not to hand, a timeframe for it to provide the schedule;
    3. an updated request for payment of the 2018/2019 service charge, or if not yet available, a timeframe for when it will be finalised;
    4. its amended estimated service charges, or if not yet available, a timeframe for when they will be finalised.

Recommendations

68. The landlord to contact the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and reiterate its offer of £100 compensation for its accepted service failure regarding the delays to its stage one and stage two responses, if it has not already done so.