Slough Borough Council (202111823)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111823

Slough Borough Council

4 August 2022

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 response to:

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied his home under a leasehold property where he had lived for 10 years. The property was situated on an estate with several blocks. The caretaking and maintenance services were delivered through a contractor. The landlord is a local authority.

Legal and Policy framework

Under the lease, the resident had an obligation to pay service charges which covered costs including caretaker facilities and grounds maintenance. A leaseholder was also subject to regulations which included not leaving items or any refuse on the common parts and abiding by regulations in relation to storage. The landlord had an obligation to repair, redecorate, and renew specified cupboards. The landlord had a discretion to make further regulations in relation to the safety and cleanliness of the estate and securing the comfort and convenience of its occupants. Not all occupants would have been subject to the same terms but they may have been similar. Moreover, fly-tipping, as well as being unlawful, can be deemed to be creating nuisance.
According to an estate inspections fact sheet, estate inspections should be documented consistently and to be available electronically. All estates would be inspected regularly at a frequency based on risk, having regard to matters including the level of reported anti-social behaviour (ASB) cases, and any health and safety issues. Any actions that are deemed to be necessary following the inspection must be completed within three working days following the visit.
Under its compensation policy, the landlord had the discretion to pay compensation for “distress” and time and trouble if the complainant’s efforts were more than would routinely be required

Chronology

The resident previously made a complaint in 2019 that he later referred to this service (Reference 202007248) about:
1. The maintenance and the repair of communal area doors.
2. The standard of cleaning in communal areas and the building’s caretaker not reporting fly-tipping or repairs to the landlord.
The landlord held a resident’s panel meeting on 3 March 2020, as the third stage of the complaint which minutes included:
1. The landlord considered how to number or reference the doors to give clarity when reporting problems.
2. It noted that a proactive response from the caretaker would have been helpful as they visit the block every week.
3. A specified person would be the resident’s single point of contact.
4. Landlord would consider arranging for a housing officer to carry out weekly block inspections
5. A plan of action was in place to be implemented as a priority however there was an issue with vandalism.
6. A housing officer gave her commitment to providing the resident with weekly updates.
7. Repairs and a review of the repairs history would have to be carried out before considering any alternative, more effective option for keeping the block secure, such as installing iron shutters on the communal doors. It would also wish to avoid making the estate look unattractive and consider costs implications for leasehold residents.
The complaints panel made the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should consider future options for the site to make it safe and secure to live in.
2. Provide the resident board with a written plan and timescales for completing the works on this block and regular verbal updates thereafter.
3. The contractor should present a report to the resident board on the caretaking service and what it was doing to address poor performance.
The landlord carried out a detailed inspection on 16 March 2020 that was to be sent to its contractor recommending a deep clean, replacing notice boards, and noting issues such as leaks and graffiti on the estate.
In its investigation report of the resident’s complaint dated 30 April 2021, the Ombudsman noted that there had been a number of repairs to communal doors and gates in 2019. The landlord stated that it would install CCTV by 26 April 2019 to help identify fly–tippers. However, as at 22 October 2019 while the CCTV was present, it did not capture any fly–tipping. It would inspect the communal door fob system. According to an internal email of 16 February 2020, the landlord stated that the front and rear doors had been replaced and it was awaiting a fitting date for the side door, which was previously secure.
The landlord had also provided an asbestos report dated 28 March 2019, which identified that the ceiling in the building’s communal area contained low risk asbestos cement panels. The report concluded that the landlord had acknowledged its failure to provide a reasonable caretaking service.
On 21 April 2021, the resident made a fresh complaint as follows:
1. There were blue canisters of chemicals in communal cupboards despite the landlord having assured him that they had been removed previously after going through the previous complaint. The leaseholders had been charged for this. Someone had since broken into the cupboards and removed them.
2. Communal doors were not secure, allowing free access to drug users, drug dealers, and individuals sleeping in the communal cupboards. He had reported this to the police. The communal doors had not been repaired.
3. The resident required an explanation for the delays and lack of progress.
The landlord replied on 23 April 2021 stating that it would pass the complaint to its contractor for investigation and reply within 10 working days.
The resident chased a response on 14,18 and 24 May 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 May 2021 that he had received the relevant leaseholder consultation notices three months previously for a total of three communal doors being replaced rather than repaired. They had been repaired a number of times for which he had been charged. He also reported that assurances had been made in March 2020 that steel doors had been ordered to replace ground–floor cupboards. He asked that the complaint be escalated to Stage 2 which the landlord did. There was some confusion about which doors were referred to in correspondence. He emphasised the complaint was about all three communal doors.
According to an internal email of 24 May 2021, the landlord liaised with its ASB team. It accepted there were a number of improvement items required. The contractor had taken a long time to prepare the necessary prices and had resolved and attended to a number of the issues (not all), but it needed a more long–term view as the issues were caused mainly by ASB rather than faults with the buildings.
On 2 June 2021, the landlord considered arranging a meeting with the residents. It would discuss the gates and CCTV, although CCTV would be expensive due to the condition of the local environment.
The landlord also noted that most of the reports had been in relation to the controlled–access doors not working making it more accessible for the youths to enter the building and who were not visitors. Once the controlled–access doors were repaired, proposed for that week, it should alleviate many of the issues.
On 2 June 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. Leaseholder charges: The resident had reported that he had been charged for duplicated repairs and that the contractor had not provided the necessary supporting information he had requested. The resident’s complaint had highlighted for the landlord how the contractor logged repairs on some of the larger communal blocks, some duplicate repairs had been identified and the contractor was in the process of reimbursing the landlord who would arrange for refunds based on a list provided to the resident.
2. The landlord had inspected the communal doors and had only noticed one defect with one single door which the landlord had arranged to repair. It appreciated the door had been repaired several times due to vandalism. It agreed that the door was key to preventing access to the flats and the subsequent ASB and would consider other options to make the entrance more secure. Replacing a like–for–like door would not necessarily provide a lasting solution. A fresh consultation notice would be issued.
3. The landlord had considered fencing off the bin area but it considered that a fenced–off area would provide a bigger target. A fenced–off area would need to be high enough to prevent rubbish being thrown over the top. Another door would provide another set of issues as it would require a metal gate with fob access which would present a high cost to residents. It offered to listen to proposals from residents.
4. The asbestos ceiling tiles presented a very low risk as indicated by the report, but increasingly they were breaking up and becoming damaged. It was necessary to replace them.
5. It would replace the notice boards.
6. The landlord had inspected the previous week and found none of the cupboards open. It would check the cleaning requirements for the block and ensure the contractor was “aware of their responsibilities.”
7. It was proposing to replace all 14 doors in the block with steel doors to finally prevent any access to certain areas. It would need to initiate a consultation. It had not identified any graffiti on communal walls on inspection but this would be reviewed.
8. It had identified a visible leak outside a flat which had been an issue for some time. The contractor had not been able to obtain access from the relevant resident to resolve the issue. It would be pursued.
9. CCTV had previously been looked into but there were issues with suitable locations and signal strength, which would make it very expensive but could be reconsidered.
10. It accepted that there had been delays in procuring prices and drawing up proposals for the improvement works. It attributed some of the delay to the lockdown.
The resident replied on 8 June 2021 the issues had been ongoing for many years. There had been no changes in the communication and complaints handling process or any significant change in maintaining and providing a secure living environment for the residents. He referred to a cupboard which had contained gas canisters and were littered around the estate. He suggested a wooden fenced–off area with a caged roof which would be more cost effective. He suggested that funds would be better spent on securing the exterior of the flats as opposed to internal doors. In relation to the leaks, he had spoken to the resident and the contractor had attended his flat. He attached a photo of graffiti on communal walls taken a few days previously. He requested information about repairs and other information. He proposed a meeting between the residents, landlord, and the contractor. He requested the complaint be progressed to the third stage. He chased his request on a number of occasions in July 2021 and the landlord promised a reply in early August 2021.
The resident reported on 17 August 2021 that the notice board had been not been replaced however the internal cupboard doors had been. It is noted from emails of October and November 2021 that the resident continued to report fly-tipping and ASB. He was still chasing repairs to the communal doors. He had not received a consultation notice.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the state of repair and security of communal doors, the resident’s reports of fly tipping and to the resident’s concerns regarding communal cleaning.

While the landlord did not provide documents or evidence that preceded 6 March 2021, it is clear given the previous investigation that there had been a history of issues in relation to fly–tipping in the resident’s block. It was not disputed that the landlord had a responsibility to maintain the estate and keep it free from waste and damage. The evidence indicated that the condition of the estate gave the resident considerable concern. It also indicated that the issue was largely, but not exclusively, due to non-residents accessing the estate and therefore largely due to the lack of security to the estate and to the bin area.
While the scale of the condition of the estate was disputed, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s view was based on a snapshot by the landlord prior to its response of 8 June 2021. The evidence indicated that matters had not improved significantly since the resident’s complaint in 2019. It was not disputed that improvements were required and that repairs were ineffective. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided feedback to the resident following his previous complaint and to have undertaken improvements, given that it had acknowledged at the time of the 2019 complaint that its caretaking services were not adequate.
The evidence indicated that the landlord had undertaken a number of repairs, had tried CCTV and had reconsidered its installation. It was reasonable and appropriate that, after the conclusion of the resident’s complaint in 2020, the landlord undertook a detailed inspection on 16 March 2020.
While clearly, the landlord faced difficulties in controlling the condition of the estate, ensuring its security without incurring high costs for the leaseholders and while considering aesthetics, the Ombudsman would have expected better progress. There was no evidence that the landlord had introduced the suggestions made at the meeting of 3 March 2020 or that it had acted on its own findings, including ensuring a proactive response from its caretakers, numbering the communal doors for clarify, and providing weekly updates. There was also no evidence of the outcome of any review after repairs took place, including considering iron shutters. Given the history, the Ombudsman would also have expected the landlord to had already put in motion its suggestions it set out in its complaint response of 8 June 2021.
The Ombudsman is unable to conclude whether the landlord’s approach to undertake multiple repairs was cost effective.
While the evidence indicated that the issue lay largely with the landlord’s caretaker service, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to liaise with the service and to ensure it had adequate contractual arrangements in place to ensure the landlord and residents received an appropriate service.
Rather than provide updates, the landlord had not communicated the outcome of the consultation regarding replacement communal doors nor its decision not to install them after all. Simply telling the resident to “ignore” the consultation was not satisfactory.
While the Ombudsman notes that the landlord made some efforts to control the situation, undertake the repairs, and replace the internal cupboards, it was not disputed repairing the gates would not have resolved the problem. In the circumstances, its actions to date were not adequate in terms of options available, such as considering introducing or increasing its inspections by housing officers, as suggested by its policy, ensuring feedback from its caretaking service, undertaking a comprehensive consultation regarding any solutions including alternative doors and security measures.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding service charges.

The evidence showed that had the resident not raised its concerns regarding the service charges, the landlord would not have identified duplication of costs. While the landlord’s transparency is appreciated, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carry out its own audit before passing on charges to its residents as being fundamental. Its failure to do so was unsatisfactory and would be damaging to the landlord and tenant relationship. While it acknowledged its error and set out to address it, it did not offer compensation which, given the seriousness of the issue, would have been appropriate. If the landlord had not demonstrated its transparency and that it was committed to addressing the issue, the Ombudsman would have found maladministration rather than service failure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about asbestos.

The landlord was entitled to reply on the evidence of a specialist surveyor that the the risk from the asbestos was low at the time of the report in 2020 and that the landlord was reviewing the matter. It was appropriate that it had kept the matter under review and identified the asbestos was deteriorating and was addressing it.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the state of repair and security of communal doors, the resident’s reports of fly tipping and to the resident’s concerns regarding communal cleaning.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding service charges.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about asbestos.

Reasons

While the landlord had made efforts to address the issues in the estate, and was facing considerable issues and difficulties, there was evidence that it could have done more to ensure that its contractor delivered to an adequate standard, undertook consultations sooner and communicated better with the resident.
The evidence indicated that the landlord had not carried out proper checks of the costs it was passing on to the residents and had not offered compensation in the circumstances.
The evidence showed that the asbestos risk was low but that the landlord had kept it under review and had escalated it when appropriate.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £400 within 28 days as follows:
1. £200 relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the state of repair and security of communal doors, the resident’s reports of fly tipping and to the resident’s concerns regarding communal cleaning.
2. £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding service charges.
The landlord is also ordered to prepare, within 28 days, an action plan to share with its residents with measurable outcomes and timescales in relation to:
1. Consultations (informal and formal) on works it may and/or intends to carry out regarding security measures, including alternative communal doors, fitting all 14 doors in the block with steel doors and the installation of high bins walls with a fob system.
2. Repairs to noticeboards.
3. Inspections of the estate on a regular basis by its own officers or managers.
4. Seeking feedback from its caretaking service and reviewing its contractual arrangements with its caretaking contractor.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Housing Ombudsman service with the above orders and provide a copy of the action plan within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations that the landlord:
1. Considers alternative, and more effective options, to make the block more secure from damage and fly-tipping including considering more secure entrances to the estate and a metal gate to the bin area with fob access and replacing all 14 doors in the block with steel doors to prevent any access to these areas.
2. Arranges a meeting between the landlord, residents of the estate and the contractor to discuss how to improve the condition and maintenance of the estate, particularly as additional charges would be borne by leaseholders but which works may alleviate the need for constant repairs.
3. Ensures that it receives proactive reports from the caretaking service and that ensures it monitors closely the performance of the service.
4. Consider arranging for a housing officer or manager to carry out regular block inspections.
5. Keeps the decision to install CCTV under review.
6. Sends round-robin letters to its residents on the estate asking them to report issues and the consequences of fly-tipping.
7. Considers whether its lease and any tenancy regulations are adequate to address fly-tipping, monitors as far as it is able to do so any fly-tipping by residents, and take appropriate action when relevant.
8. Clearly number its communal doors to give clarity when residents reported problems and the landlord provided feedback.
9. Shares this report with the resident panel so that it can monitor progress.
10. Ensures it keeps the resident and the resident panel updated on planned and actual improvements and the condition of the estate.
11. Considers arranging meetings on a regular basis, at a frequency in the landlord’s discretion, between the residents, landlord, and the contractor to review the issues on the estate.
12. As well as ensuring it refunds the residents of duplicate charges if it has not done so already, ensure it properly checks the contractor’s charges before passing them onto residents.
13. Provide an update on what steps the landlord has taken or intends to take to address the asbestos referred to in this complaint.
14. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 28 days of this report.