Newham Council (202205617)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205617

Newham Council

15 February 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:
   1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of services provided by the landlord in respect of repairs, caretaking and maintenance.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. Since 2017 the resident has been the leaseholder of a one-bedroom flat on the second floor of a purpose-built low-rise block. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
3. In September 2021 the landlord issued the resident with an invoice for £247.60 along with accounts detailing the actual service charge due for the year 2020/2021. This was further to a previous estimate and an increase in the expected costs, mainly in relation to minor repairs.
4. The resident complained that there were little or no repairs done due to the pandemic, she had not seen not much caretaking being done and the gardens were “unusable”. She disputed the increase in the service charge and felt the area was cleaner and safer prior to the recent improvements. The landlord responded that repairs had been done during the period billed, and that caretaking and gardening was still undertaken during the lockdown. It said the resident’s concerns would be passed to the relevant teams.
5. The resident escalated her complaint. There was delay by the landlord is issuing its final complaint response and it offered compensation of £50 to reflect that. The landlord said it had reviewed the stage one investigation and response but had not changed its position that the charges were correct in relation to the repairs, maintenance and caretaking which were carried out in the resident’s block during the period of the invoice.
6. When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that she remained dissatisfied by the additional sum charged for the year 2020/21 as she felt the landlord had not provided a justifiable service. In particular, she believed there were little to no minor repairs completed on the block, that no caretaking services were done as a result of lockdown, and that since March 2020 the grass on the block had not been maintained and that the emergency light was only repaired after April 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

7. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges nor whether the amount being charged is reasonable. This Service can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about specific charges in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles.

Assessment

Minor repairs and maintenance

8. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the landlord is responsible for the structure, exterior and communal parts of the building, including the door entry system and the main entry to a block. Information provided on the landlord’s website says that the grounds maintenance teams are responsible for cutting the grass, trimming hedges, and pruning shrubs and roses on your estate and that the grass is usually cut every two weeks between March and November. This adds that it may be cut at other times, if needed. This information also lists the items charged for including minor repairs.
9. The resident’s lease effective from 2017 says that the leaseholder will pay the landlord a proportionate part of the expenses and outgoings incurred by the landlord in the repair maintenance renewal; insurance of the estate and the provision of services therein; and of reasonable improvements.
10. The lease also covers the landlord’s obligation to maintain, repair, clean and make fair and reasonable improvements to the structure of the estate; and to passages, landings and staircases. It also includes its obligation to tend, keep clean and tidy and generally to maintain the gardens, forecourts roadways and pathways used in connection with the estate as well as its obligation to maintain the caretaking service to the estate. The third schedule relates to contributions from leaseholders, with paragraph 6 relating to caretaking.
11. In this instance, the landlord acted appropriately by investigating the resident’s concerns about repairs not being carried out during the year billed. The landlord explained that repairs were done to the communal areas of the resident’s building and across the estate. Its repairs log for the financial year beginning 2020 included repairs to lights, a door and frame that were renewed for fire safety, the unblocking of drains, doors repairs, replacement of intercom buzzers and new access fobs.  The log also included the costs for each item, which matched the total figure quoted in the September 2021 invoice.
12. The landlord explained that its previous estimate of the resident’s contribution to repairs for the year 2020/21 was £100, but the actual cost was £370.33. Other items were lower than estimated. The landlord also confirmed that there were no repairs carried out in respect of emergency lighting in the year billed but noted that the estimate and actual cost for this element for the year was zero.
13. In respect of the resident’s concerns about maintenance and caretaking, the landlord said that its records showed a full caretaking service was provided during the pandemic; when operatives were isolating due to covid, their patches were covered by neighbouring operatives. The landlord confirmed that the bin collection day was Monday, and the cleaning day was Friday, so the resident would not be expected to have seen the caretaker every day. The caretaker’s contact details were also supplied. The landlord has supplied a schedule of inspections undertaken at the resident’s block which showed a “pass” recorded for dates in January 2020 and February 2021. There is no more detailed information given in relation to this, although the landlord has provided a proforma for a date in 2022 which shows that items such as the bins, communal areas and gardens were inspected.
14. In response to the resident’s concerns about grounds maintenance, the landlord confirmed that its investigation had shown that “reasonable” maintenance works were carried out during the period and the resident’s concerns were forwarded to the grounds maintenance team for further improvements. The landlord said that during the growing season gardeners attend around every three weeks to cut the grass. However, that was weather dependant and so was affected by rain and/or drought conditions. The landlord did not provide a report of actual maintenance with dates to cover the period in question; however, the landlord confirmed that it was rolling out an asset management system that would record all garden maintenance activity going forward; furthermore, new gardens were being created in the area which would be accessible by the resident’s block and two others. 
15. In its final response letter, the landlord said it had reviewed the previous response and checked if the complaints policy had been adhered to. The landlord confirmed that the information in the stage one response was collated by a senior officer within the team and had been reviewed and the landlord was satisfied with the response given. The landlord said it could arrange for a member of the service charge team to go through the figures in more detail if required.
16. It would have been useful to have had further evidence from the landlord of the detail of caretaking and gardening work undertaken in the period in question. However, there is no evidence of reports made by the resident during the period April 2020 to March 2021 to indicate any concern in relation to these elements of the maintenance or gardening, which suggests that she was reasonably satisfied with the levels of upkeep in and around the block. In respect of the minor repairs charged for in that period, the landlord has given details of the work undertaken on the estate and there was no contrary evidence to suggest that this work was not completed as described.
17. The Ombudsman appreciates the resident’s concern in relation to the increase of over 25% to the annual service charge and that this gave rise to question the costs incurred by the landlord. However, there is no evidence to challenge the landlord’s claim that the caretaking and maintenance were not done to a reasonable standard during the year or that repairs were not carried out as billed. The landlord gave a clear response regarding the charges and offered a further explanation if the resident wanted.
18. In summary, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took proportionate and appropriate action in relation to investigating the concerns raised by the resident about the service charge.

Complaint handling

19. The landlord’s complaints policy says that complaints should be responded within 20 working days at stage one and within 15 working days at stage two. This policy says compensation may be considered where there has been clear service failure. The compensation policy guidance gives suggested payments between £50 to £150 for time and trouble.
20. In this case, the stage one complaint response was issued inside the timeframes allowed for. The resident escalated the complaint on 29 March 2022 and the landlord’s final response was issued on 7 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged this delay, apologised, and offered the resident £50 compensation. The complaint responses clearly detailed the issues being complained about and the landlord’s reply to each, the landlord apologised where it had not met its obligations and included escalation rights. The compensation offered is in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect to see in such cases. Accordingly, the matter has been dealt with in a fair and reasonable manner by the landlord.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the maintenance, repairs and caretaking charged for within the service charge.
22. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) the member has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves complaint about the delay in the complaint response satisfactorily.

Recommendations

23. It is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the sum of £50 offered in the final response for the impact of its complaint handling failures.