Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Thurrock Council (202104511)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104511

Thurrock Council

19 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about its communal service provision.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident has been a joint secure tenant of a three-bedroom maisonette since February 2006. She says that she is being billed through her service charge, for cleaning and caretaking services to communal area, which she says are simply not happening.
  2. The resident says she has complained about this over a long time before formalising the present complaint; she provides no evidence supporting this, but comments by the landlord imply that it may be correct, in that the landlord refers to repeated offers to meet with her to discuss her concerns.
  3. The resident formalised this complaint on 14 May 2021, and the landlord replied not expressly stating an outcome, but making it implicitly clear that the complaint was rejected. The same is true of the landlord’s response on 23 July 2021, to the resident’s escalation request.
  4. The resident then complained to the Housing Ombudsman that cleaning and caretaking services she was paying for within her services charge, were not being performed.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Although the resident says she has complained before the formal complaint now escalated to this service, no copies or evidence of earlier complaints are provided to us. This service, then, can only consider the evidence provided in relation to the complaint formalised by the resident in May 2021, and the landlord’s response from that point.
  2. In addition, the evidence available on the case alludes to resident concerns about the amount that the she is being charged for communal services. The Ombudsman would not normally investigate issues relating to the level of a service charge as such concerns are better handled through the First Tier Tribunal. Whilst the service charge itself is referred to in the body of this report, this is for contextual purposes only, as the investigation is specifically focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the level of communal service provision.

Landlord response to the communal service issues

  1. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 May 2021, saying that the complaint investigator themselves had conducted both pre-arranged and other “ad hoc” inspections, and had noticed a continuous improvement in estate condition. The response added that no other residents had complained, and – though this service has been provided with no supporting evidence – that a number of compliments had been received about the caretaking and cleaning service.
  2. The landlord added that in response to the recent covid pandemic, the caretakers had implemented an additional program of sanitising block door-handles and push-buttons, and that caretakers had assisted isolating residents by taking litter to the shared bins for them.
  3. It is notable that the landlord did not refer, in its complaint response, to any review of the caretaker’s site records, contemporaneously logging the caretaker’s attendance and work done. A number of these were in fact provided to this service as part of the landlord’s evidence in response to the complaint once escalated to this Service, and they do appear consistent with the investigator’s conclusion from their own inspections. It might have been helpful if these had been provided to the resident, or at the very least, if the landlord had confirmed review of them and explained the outcome of any such review, in its stage one response.
  4. The landlord complaint response did not actually state an outcome to the complaint, neither upholding, rejecting nor partially upholding it. However, rejection of the complaint was clearly implied, not least because, despite not expressly stating any outcome, the landlord said it understood that the resident may be disappointed by the outcome. 
  5. Finally, the stage one complaint investigator referred to previous offers to discuss concerns with the resident, which were stated to have been declined. The offer was repeated in this response, and the writer’s phone number was provided.
  6. There is no evidence that the resident took up that offer, but she escalated her complaint, and added a specific question asking the landlord when and why a caretaking charge – together with other service elements – had been added to her rent. On 9 July 2021 the landlord replied by email on that specific question, separately from the stage 2 review and response process. The Housing Ombudsman does not criticise the landlord’s decision to treat this as a separate question and respond to it separately – not least, because it meant it could do so faster, while the stage 2 investigation was still progressing.
  7. The landlord explained that these service charge elements had always been included in the resident’s rent, but that in response to government guidelines, the landlord had separated them from the basic rent to show them separately. The landlord clarified that it had not, in fact, added anything, the total occupation charge inclusive of both rent and the service charge now stated separately, being the same as the rent was previously.
  8. On 23 July 2021, the landlord issued its stage 2 and final response to the resident. The landlord still made no reference to the caretaker’s contemporaneous records, and again this might have been helpful as, once again, they have been provided to the Ombudsman and do appear consistent with the landlord’s findings. The response also, once again, failed actually to expressly state an outcome, although again the outcome was clearly implied: the stage 2 reviewer summarised inquiries made which were stated to support the stage 1 findings, which were repeated; again, despite failing to expressly state an outcome, it expressed understanding that the resident would be disappointed.
  9. The stage 2 response also referred to further issues not previously mentioned. In particular, the landlord mentioned problem fly-tipping, its management of which was detailed, and repeated vandalism of bin shed doors. It said that this appeared to result from residents lacking key fobs, and so forcing them open. It therefore confirmed the landlord’s intention to write to all tenants offering a fob to any lacked one. This was a reasonable response to the issue identified by the landlord during the complaints process.
  10. In escalating her complaint to this Service, the resident has provided what she says is photographic evidence of service failure. The Ombudsman is limited in the extent that photographic evidence can be relied upon, however, the information provided does not appear to offer any immediately obvious evidence of systemic service failure. The areas photographed do not show visible signs of litter, graffiti, mess or damage. The Ombudsman therefore has no evidence to contradict the landlord’s assertion that caretaking and cleaning services are being carried out as required.
  11. The landlord has provided to this Service, a copy of its 10 February 2021 committee paper entitled: “Housing Revenue Account – Business Plan and Budgets 2021/22”, showing how service charges were calculated for the year during which this complaint was made. At paragraph 3.8, it makes clear that they have not historically covered the full cost to the landlord of the services, and that while that will need to be corrected over time, the increase to be implemented in the year in question will not completely do this. There is therefore no evidence to suggest that the resident has been charged any more that the cost to the landlord of the service it has in fact provided.
  12. In all the circumstances of the case, the landlord provided a satisfactory response  to the resident’s concerns about service provision within communal areas. It confirmed that the communal areas had been inspected on multiple occasions to ensure the standard of communal works, it provided (to this Service at least) evidence supporting its view that services were being provided, responded to additional queries raised by the resident during the complaints process and offered to discuss the resident’s concerns with her in person.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal service provision.

Orders and Recommendations

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaint response drafting, to ensure that clear specific outcomes are stated in all cases, together with full accounts of investigations made and evidence considered in reaching them.