Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202203977)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203977

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

4 May 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 reports that she did not receive services for which she was being charged.
   2. Handling of works required to the kitchen at the property.
   3. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident is a secured tenant of the landlord in a three-bedroom property. The resident pays a weekly variable service charge. The service charge relates to external lighting and ground maintenance. The landlord’s contractor noted that there were problems with the position of two sockets in the resident’s kitchen. At a later date the landlord visited the property and advised that the sockets were in the wrong place and that the kitchen needed replacing. Whilst the landlord has not provided records of the visits by it or its contractor, it is not disputed that the visits took place.
3. On 27 May 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about the lack of service being provided despite the resident paying a service charge. The resident stated that it was an ongoing complaint due to the upkeep of the exterior and communal areas namely in regards to fly tipping and overgrown trees and shrubs. The resident requested that she be refunded for all service charges paid. Neither the landlord nor the resident has provided details to this Service of the complaint prior to 27 May 2021.
4. On 27 May 2021 the resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of the works that it had advised it would carry out in the resident’s kitchen. The resident highlighted that she had been told that a decision would be made within a week and that at the time of the complaint, she had been waiting three weeks. The resident stated that she had made numerous calls to the landlord in this regard. The landlord has not provided any records to this Service in relation to the kitchen issues prior to the resident’s complaint. The landlord provided internal correspondence between itself, its agents, and contractors in relation to replacing the resident’s kitchen which indicates that the contractor began work on 11 June 2021.
5. On 4 August 2021 the landlord issued its stage one response in which the landlord stated that it was able to resolve the resident’s kitchen issues. The landlord’s response does not go into any further detail about how the issues were resolved and whether there were any ongoing or further works scheduled.
6. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about the services relating to the service charge. The landlord provided a breakdown of the service charge and advised that there would be ongoing management of the communal and surrounding areas. The landlord advised that removing fly tipping had not been charged for, however it had referred this issue to be dealt with by the relevant team. In relation to the resident’s request for a full refund of the service charges, the landlord outlined that it was not able to address matters that were raised or occurred over 6 months ago. The landlord said that it would however meet with the relevant individual to discuss the refund further.
7. On the same day, the resident replied to the landlord to clarify her complaint as she felt her concerns had not been fully addressed. The resident stated her complaint was not just about fly tipping but that the services she paid for were not being provided. The resident said that the service charge was for garden and lighting maintenance, but felt the maintenance was “non-existent”. The resident also raised issues about trees not being cut back, overgrown shrubbery and lifting paving which she considered to be health and safety risks.
8. After further correspondence and calls between the landlord and the resident, on 26 August 2021 the resident’s complaint was escalated to stage two. In addition to the above, the resident also set out her concerns about a tree that needed to be removed and raised further issues about the landlord’s follow-on visit concerning the kitchen door and a cupboard door.
9. The landlord issued its final response on 21 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in relation to the maintenance issues and her request for a refund of the service charge. The landlord advised that it would carry out a review and would confirm the outcome with the resident. The landlord confirmed that the trees causing concern had been removed, and it would be inspecting other trees and shrubs. The works relating to the trees and shrubs would be agreed and the resident would be notified about the works and timescales. The landlord advised the fly tipping rubbish would be removed on 27 September 2021 and issues with the footpath would be reviewed on the same occasion. The landlord confirmed that its property inspector would be in touch in relation to any outstanding kitchen works.
10. The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident continues to dispute the service charge and maintains that the service is still not being provided. The resident also states that none of the works the landlord confirmed have been carried out.
11. It appears that the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord on 16 May 2022, and a stage one response was issued on 29 July 2022.This further complaint does not form part of this investigation as:
    1. Whilst it relates to service charge issues, the matters raised appear to be distinct from those raised by the resident in the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 21 September 2021.
    2. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint that exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 21 September 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that she did not receive services for which she was being charged

12. The resident states the issues relating to the services she was charged for in her service charge payments have been ongoing for at least seven years. These historic matters have not been included in this investigation and are referred to for context only. This report considers the complaint dated 27 May 2021.
13. In the resident’s complaint dated 27 May 2021 she outlined her concerns in relation to the upkeep of the exterior and communal areas surrounding the property. The resident stated that there were issues with fly tipping, over grown shrubs and lifting paving. The resident requested that the charges from the past four years be refunded as she believed “nothing has been done”. The resident highlighted that there were health and safety issues as a result of the lack of service provided and that the resident, and her family were at “risk on a continual basis.” The resident stated that her tenancy agreement was not being upheld. The landlord’s response to the complaint detailed that there would be ongoing management of the communal and surrounding areas. The landlord also provided a breakdown of what the charges related to. The landlord advised that the service charge did not cover fly tipping, however the issue had been referred to the relevant team to be dealt with. In reference to a full refund of service charges, the landlord also noted that it could only address matters raised, or those that occurred, in the last six months.
14. In response to the landlord’s stage two decision, the resident stated that aspects of her complaint were not addressed. The resident outlined that her complaint related to the “non-existent” grounds and lighting maintenance for which she had been paying a service charge. The resident also highlighted that trees had not been cut back and a tree situated in the adjoining property was posing a health and safety risk.
15. Whilst the landlord clarified what the charges were for, and assured the resident that there would be ongoing management going forward, it did not address the resident’s concerns about work not being carried out, despite the resident paying for the services. The landlord has not provided any records of maintenance work or similar to this Service, it is therefore difficult to ascertain when the service were carried out, or if they were carried out at all.
16. It is appreciated that at stage two the landlord advised that it would be reviewing the services going forward and that some of the trees complained about had since been cut down, but no remedy was provided for the inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident outlined that the paving and leaning tree from the adjoining property posed health and safety risks to the her and her family which the landlord did not address in its complaint responses.
17. For the reasons set out in the previous two paragraphs there was therefore maladministration by the landlord and an order for compensation of £200 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failings has been made below.

The landlord’s handling of works required to the kitchen at the property

18. It is noted that the landlord advised the resident that the kitchen would need replacing and that it would be in contact with the resident within a week with a decision in relation to the kitchen works. The resident, in their complaint, highlighted that the landlord did not contact the resident again and that she chased the matter for three weeks prior to raising her complaint.
19. After the resident raised her complaint, the landlord investigated and sought an update in relation to the resident’s kitchen replacement. The contractor confirmed with the resident that works would commence on 11 June 2021. The landlord therefore confirmed in its stage one response that the kitchen issues had been resolved.
20. During the stage two escalation and thereafter, the resident still had ongoing and outstanding issues concerning the kitchen. In the landlord’s stage two response, it outlined that the property inspector would contact the resident to see if further visits were required and that the issues would be added to the repairs database. The resident says that none of the work confirmed by the landlord has been carried out, namely works in relation to the kitchen door and cupboard doors. As such, whilst it appears that the majority of the kitchen works were carried out, there are outstanding issues remaining in relation to the kitchen.
21. The landlord resolved aspects of the resident’s kitchen issues, however the resident did have to initially chase the landlord for an update and has had to chase again in relation to the outstanding issues. As such, the landlord did fail to meet service standards for action. A finding of service failure has been made, for which the resident should be compensated £50. Further to this, the landlord should ensure all and/or any outstanding works have been completed within eight weeks of this investigation report.

Complaints handling

22. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that it will acknowledge stage one complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. Further, stage two complaints are said to be acknowledged within 5 working days and the policy indicates a full response should be received by residents within 20 working days. The policy notes that any delays will be communicated with the resident and delays would not exceed a further 10 working days.
23. The resident’s initial complaint was made on 27 May 2021 which was acknowledged by the landlord on the same day. The landlord responded to the stage one complaint 49 working days after the initial complaint. The response was issued on 4 August 2021, the day after the resident contacted the landlord for a response. As such, the landlord did not comply with its complaints policy and procedure.
24. The resident’s stage two complaint was made the same day that the resident received their stage one response. The resident chased the landlord on 12 and 17 August 2021 for a response. Following a conversation between the parties, the resident’s stage two complaint was acknowledged on 26 August 2021, 16 working days after the initial escalation. On 21 September 2021 the resident received a stage two response which was 34 working days after the complaint was escalated to stage two. As such, the landlord did not comply with its complaints policy and procedure.
25. There is no evidence for the reasons for the delays, or that the delays were communicated to the resident at either stage.
26. In terms of the complaint response, specifically at stage one, the landlord failed to address a majority of the issues the resident was complaining about in relation to the services not being provided. The landlord’s response appeared to focus on what the charges were for rather than assessing the resident’s specific complaint and concerns about the lack of service being provided. Further, there is no evidence to show that the landlord assessed or queried that any of the maintenance work was carried out in line with its standards, schedule or at all. As the landlord was unable to address whether the services paid for had been carried out, it appears that there was a lack of thoroughness to the investigation and a concern about the landlord’s record keeping.
27. There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling and an award of order for compensation of £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures has been made below.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports that she did not receive services for which she was being charged.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of works required to the kitchen at the property.
30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within four weeks of this investigation report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 made up as follows:
    1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of its response to the resident’s reports that she did not receive services for which she was being charged.
    2. £50 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its handling of the works required to the kitchen at the property.
    3. £150 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of its complaints handling failures.
32. Within eight weeks of this investigation report, the landlord is to complete any outstanding kitchen works at the property.
33. The landlord to evidence compliance with these orders to this Service by the dates stipulated.

Recommendations

34. The landlord to keep record of visits and works carried out by its contractors in relation to maintenance.