The Guinness Partnership Limited (202200312)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200312

The Guinness Partnership Limited

17 November 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
2. Response to the residents reports of services paid for via the service charge.
3. Increase of the service charge.
4. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In this case, the resident had raised issues related to service charges. This included her dissatisfaction that her service charge had increased when the works covered by the charge had not been done.
Paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where it could be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The resident’s concern about the service charge increasing would most effectively be decided upon by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which could potentially make a legally binding decision about the service charge increase.
As such, the resident’s complaint related to the increase in the service charge is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident would like to pursue this further, she could contact the Leasehold Advisory Service.
This investigation will not consider the service charge increase issue, however, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charge provision is within the Ombudsman’s remit and will be considered within this report.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy at the property, which is a flat. She has lived at the property since 2017 and lives with her two children.
The block of flats is split into two “wings”, with the landlord leasing the East wing and the council leasing the West wing to provide accommodation for the homeless. Each wing has its own entrance lobby and its own lift. The lift in the East wing (the landlord’s side) was new when the building was converted from an office block around 11 years ago. The building is managed by a managing agent.
The resident pays a weekly service charge. This covers individual gas, private water, door entry and the managing agent charge. The service charges paid by the resident were as follows:
1. 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021, £16.31 per week.
2. 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022, £33.39 per week.
3. 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023, £42.33 per week.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord may increase or decrease the service charge by giving the resident at least one month’s notice. The resident has the right to challenge a variable service charge by bringing it before the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states as follows:
1. If the reported issue does not require an emergency repair, it will aim to fix it within 28 calendar days, and sooner if possible.
2. If it is not possible to fix a repair on the first visit, it will communicate clearly with resident why the repair could not be completed, what it intends to do and what should happen next, including when it will return to complete the repair.
3. The landlord’s repair responsibilities include the common parts of the building.
The landlord’s anti-social behaviour policy states as follows:
1. When it receives a report of ASB, it will carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB is having on the resident and whether they are vulnerable.
2. It will take proportionate and timely action to deal with the ASB. The action will be proportionate to the severity, impact and frequency of the ASB and the evidence available to support the case. It will take legal action if it is appropriate to do so.
3. A named member of staff will keep residents informed at regular intervals about the action being taken, including the next steps to deal with the ASB.
4. It may work in partnership with other agencies including the police or local authority to tackle the ASB.
5. Where responsibility for investigating an incident lies with another agency, it will provide that agency with appropriate support.
6. It will close an ASB case when the behaviour has improved to an acceptable level or when there is no further reasonable action that it can take to resolve the matter. It will seek to discuss its intention to close the case with the reporting party before it does so.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. Residents can make complaints a number of ways including via its website and via email.
2. It will acknowledge a complaint within 2 working days.
3. At stage 1 it will respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. At either stage, if it requires more time, it will explain this to the resident.
4. It will keep residents’ updated about the progress of their complaint.

Summary of events

On 1 January 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she was paying around £20 per week as a service charge for the building to be maintained which was not being done. In addition, she reported issues with ASB, the cleanliness of the communal areas, rubbish being dumped and broken fire escape alarms and lights.
The landlord responded the following day and apologised for the issues and advised that a member of staff would contact the resident. It stated that a contractor would attend within 24 hours to look at the fire escape lighting.
On 8 January 2020 the resident advised the landlord that she had not had any further contact from it about the issues. The landlord apologised and advised that it would be in contact within the next two days. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord made contact with the resident as advised. From the record of correspondence provided to this Service there was then a gap in correspondence with the resident until 2021.
On 19 January 2021 a lift contractor inspected the lift and provided a report which advised that water ingress had caused damage to it. The cost of repair was £4950. It is not clear if this report was sent to the landlord or the managing agent.
On 27 January 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and said as follows:
1. She was “disgusted and concerned” for the wellbeing of her family as the property was not suitable for children.
2. The block was not being looked after or kept clean.
3. She had complained previously but nothing had changed.
4. There was alcohol “everywhere” and the communal halls smelt of cannabis.
5. Items were being left dumped.
6. The temporary accommodation residents were not checked on.
7. There had been an attempted break in at her property a few months ago.
8. The front door entrance on the council side of the block was open as the lock had been snapped off.
The following day the landlord made contact with the managing agent about the issues the resident had reported. Internal correspondence from the managing agent to the landlord stated as follows:
1. It was aware that there was litter in the stairwell but advised that this was disposed of by the cleaner on a weekly basis.
2. Bulk items had been a “huge issue” since lockdown in April 2021, however such items were collected weekly. It had CCTV in place, however it could only deal with residents if it recognised them. It reminded residents approximately once a month by letter about the dangers of dumping bulky waste.
3. It was not aware of any taped up access point.
4. The overflowing bins could be as a result of three weeks of missed collections as staff were self-isolating.
5. The entrance door had been vandalised and part of the electric door entry was cut. It was not a straight forward repair but it was in hand.
6. Without being able to identify a property associated with the smell of cannabis, there was little it could do.
On 3 February 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. It was noted by this Service that this response did not state that it was a stage 1 response nor did it include any signposting on how the resident could escalate her complaint. The landlord stated as follows:
1. Many of the issues she had raised were not easy to rectify.
2. It was difficult to identify which resident(s) had caused the littering and urination, but this should be being rectified by the weekly clean.
3. A bin collection had been missed but this should not be an ongoing issue.
4. It had passed her photographs of the maintenance required to the managing agent.
5. The managing agent made regular checks of the CCTV cameras but could only deal with residents if it recognised them.
6. The police had attended a neighbours address that day. The neighbour had denied using cannabis and the police advised they could not smell cannabis in the property.
That same day the resident responded and asked to escalate her complaint. She said as follows:
1. The managing agent had not made frequent checks during COVID-19.
2. She reiterated that there was alcohol everywhere.
3. The stairs had been urinated on and had not been cleaned in about 6 months. Although a cleaner attended, for some time no cleaning was being done.
4. Many of the repairs the managing agent had promised to do during a meeting she had with it had not been done.
5. She reiterated that there was cannabis use in the block.
6. The lift had not been fixed for a year with little communication.
7. She did not feel safe or comfortable walking around the building and it was a “disgusting” environment for children.
8. She was paying a service charge of £20 a week when nothing had been done in the building in years.
That same day the landlord enquired with the managing agent about the broken lift. The managing agent advised the landlord the following day that “costly work” had been identified which it needed to discuss with the landlord.
On 4 February 2021 the landlord responded to the resident and said that she could raise a formal complaint via its website. It stated as follows:
1. It asked her to clarify whether the stairs were cleaned regularly.
2. It noted that the bins did not appear full, but that it seemed residents had left bags of rubbish next to them.
3. The police had contacted it about the smell of cannabis. The landlord asked the resident if she knew which resident(s) she suspected were using cannabis.
4. The internal repairs would be “picked up” in the next financial year.
5. It did not know how long the lift would be out of service for but it would keep her updated.
The resident responded the same day and confirmed that the stairs were not being cleaned and that nothing was being done about the rubbish and dumped items. She stated that a year was a long time for the lift to not be working and that she had not been kept informed of the work to repair it.
On 16 February 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it would aim to respond to her complaint within 20 working days. It apologised that this was outside of its usual timescale due to COVID-19.
On 22 February 2021 the managing agent confirmed to the landlord that the stairs had been mopped the week before as it had attended the building following the reports of urination.
The date is not clear from the landlord’s internal records but it took part in a meeting with the resident and the managing agent in mid to late February 2021. The landlord noted internally on 2 March 2021 that the meeting had gone well and it had been agreed that the resident could approach the managing agent directly with any issues. It noted that following the meeting it had “not really” heard from the resident. The landlord noted that the lease with the Council was not being renewed and that the residents living in the council half of the building would be re-housed.
On 11 March 2021 the landlord advised the managing agent that it did not accept liability for the costs of the lift repair. The managing agent responded on 16 March 2021 and stated that the lift in question was exclusively used by the landlord and its residents.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord noted internally that it had spoken to the resident who had advised that the issues of ASB had stopped. She had however indicated that she was still unhappy with the management of the building for which she was paying £20 a week service charge. She stated that after sending photos to the landlord, a member of staff has asked why she did not just move out and that she had not heard from the landlord further. The landlord suggested internally that it could carry out an inspection of the block.
On 8 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged in internal correspondence that the disagreement as to which party was responsible for the cost of the lift repair was causing a delay in it being repaired.
The landlord arranged an estate inspection to take place on 29 April 2021. This Service has not seen any records as to the outcome of this inspection.
The landlord sought the involvement of its legal department in May 2021 in regard to the dispute over which party was responsible for the costs of the lift repair.
On 6 May 2021 the managing agent told the landlord that it had visited the block the week before and had noted there was a strong smell of cannabis. It had knocked on doors but could not locate where the smell was coming from.
On 14 May 2021 the managing agent confirmed to the landlord that the other lift (on the West/Council side) was still working and that all residents could use it. It however advised the following week that there should not be access between the two wings, however repeated vandalism had led to the fire doors being damaged, meaning they could be pulled open. This allowed residents to go between wings and use the working lift to access their side.
The landlord and the managing agent continued to correspond about who was responsible to pay for the lift repair until 13 July 2021 when the landlord noted internally that to speed up the lift being repaired, it had agreed to pay for it on this occasion. The landlord subsequently sent a further email to the managing agent on 20 August 2021 commenting on the wording of the lease in respect of the liability for the lift.
On 1 September 2021 the resident asked the landlord for a final response to her complaint so that she could refer it to this Service. She stated that she was unhappy with how long the lift repair was taking and that her service charge had increased. She also advised that cannabis use was still taking place in communal areas.
On 6 September 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord did not state whether this was a stage 1 or 2 response but instead noted that it was a ‘review’. It stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the service she had received and for the delay in responding to her complaint.
2. An inspection had been completed shortly after the resident first submitted her complaint which had confirmed a lack of cleanliness in the common areas, the defective lift and other areas of maintenance required.
3. The complaint had been partly upheld at stage 1.
4. To ensure that the matters were monitored and resolved, it would conduct monthly estate inspections.
On 24 September 2021 the landlord issued one of the neighbours with a written warning for cannabis use and notified the police.
On 10 November 2021 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage 2 and said as follows:
1. The resident would receive communication about the lift repair within the next two weeks.
2. It understand from speaking to the resident that the issues relating to ASB had reduced. It explained that the resident could raise any further instances directly with its staff.
3. It would monitor the managing agent and hold them to account for any breaches in service level in respect of repairs and maintenance.
4. Given that the lift had been out of service for a considerable period, the resident’s service charges for 2022/23 would be amended to exclude the costs of maintenance and servicing of the lifts. This cost would be re-instated in the financial year 2023/24.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 December 2021 and stated as follows:
1. It had visited the building (the date of the visit was not provided) and it had seen that the condition of the communal areas was “poor”. As a result it had raised repairs and health and safety concerns with the managing agent.
2. It had carried out a follow up visit on 25 November 2021 and met with the managing agent. It had been pleased to see that many of the areas of concern had been addressed. This included the completion of repairs and the removal of graffiti and fly-tipped items from the car park.
3. It had been advised by the managing agent that the lift would be operational by 24 November 202, however the engineer had been unable to complete the repair by that date as a further issue had been identified. At the time of the follow up visit (25 November,) lift engineers had been on site to try to repair the lift. It acknowledged that the lift was still not operational and that it should be repaired as soon as possible.
The landlord contacted the resident again on 14 December 2021 and advised that the management company were still waiting for a date for the lift repair. It apologised and said that it would keep her updated.
On 29 December 2021 the resident reported another incident of drug use to the landlord. She advised that she had contacted the police. The landlord responded on 5 January 2022 and confirmed that it had passed the report to its tenancy enforcement team. This team contacted the resident on 20 January 2022 and asked if there had been any further issues with the neighbour. The resident confirmed that there were ongoing issues with the neighbour using drugs. The landlord contacted the police on 3 February 2022 to discuss the reports and asked if extra patrols could be carried out in the area. The landlord issued the neighbour with a written warning about drug use.
On 7 April 2022 the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. She was ashamed and embarrassed to live at the property. Her children had to live amongst addicts, anti-social behaviour and rubbish “dumped everywhere”.
2. The landlord was not providing the services paid for by the service charge. The lift had been out of service for two years and cleaning had not been done. She had not seen the monthly visits by the managing agent being carried out as advised.
3. The landlord had taken 10 months to respond to her complaint.
4. She requested to be refunded all or part of the service charges from 9 January 2020 until 2 December 2021. The landlord had offered a refund of the service charge payment for the lift as part of its response to her complaint, but it had not paid this.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

Internal correspondence from the landlord on 30 May 2022 in response to the resident having referred her case to this Service stated as follows about the reports of ASB:
1. It could have drawn up an acceptable behaviour contract with the support agency who had been working with the neighbour, although it noted the neighbour had disengaged from support.
2. The reports of ASB stopped between September 2021 and December 2021 which had been confirmed by the Police.
3. The resident’s case was closed on 30 March 2022 after it had been unable to contact her throughout February and March 2022.
4. The ASB case against the neighbour was closed on 11 May 2022 due to having no complaints or contact from the complainant since February 2022.
The lift was fixed in January 2022.
On 8 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would credit her account with £333.50 which was her portion of the total lift maintenance and servicing costs.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

When the resident reported the ASB to the landlord on 1 Janaury 2020 it did not make contact with her as it said it would. This led to the resident having to contact the landlord again. Although the landlord apologised and advised that it would contact her within two days, this Service has not seen any evidence that it did so. It is noted that there was a gap of around a year before the resident raised the ASB as an issue again within her complaint of 27 Janaury 2021.
At this point the landlord discussed the ASB with the management company and the police became involved. Following the resident’s report of ASB in Janaury 2021, there is no evidence that the landlord followed its ASB policy in carrying out a risk assessment with the resident following her reports. This should have been done in line with its policy especially as the landlord was aware that the resident was a single parent of two children and that she was reporting potential criminal activity and her concerns about the wellbeing of her family.
Following confirmation from the police that the reported drug use could not be corroborated, it was appropriate for the landlord to ask the resident if she could provide any more details about which neighbour she believed to be using drugs. It is not clear if the landlord received these details, however it appropriately arranged a meeting with the resident and managing agent in February 2021 to discuss the matters. Shortly afterwards the temporary council residents were re-housed and the resident advised the landlord in April 2021 that the ASB had stopped.
During a visit to the block by the managing agent in June 2021 it noted a smell of cannabis and the landlord subsequently issued a neighbour with a warning in September 2021. This same neighbour was given another warning by the landlord for drug use in December 2021. The warnings advised the neighbour that the landlord could commence legal action against the tenancy if further reports were received. This was appropriate and proportionate action for the landlord to take given the police involvement.
When the resident reported further drug use in Janaury 2022 the landlord was proactive in approaching the police and asking if it could provide increased patrols in the area. Although the landlord took appropriate action, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord kept the resident informed of the steps it had taken to tackle the ASB, namely the warnings and the request for police assistance. This is something which the landlord should have kept the resident informed of in line with its ASB policy.
It is noted that the landlord acknowledged in internal correspondence that it could have taken further action to tackle the ASB, namely that it could have drawn up an acceptable behaviour contract for the neighbour. Whilst it is encouraging to note that the landlord has self-assessed what else it could have done in response to the reports of ASB, it should have been transparent with the resident that there were other steps it could have taken to try to tackle the issues at the time. The landlord had been aware that the neighbour had disengaged from the process which should have prompted the landlord to take further action.
The landlord stated that it tried to make contact with the resident throughout February 2022 and March 2022 about the ASB, however this Service has not seen this correspondence. As no more reports had been received since February 2022 it closed the ASB case in May 2022. This was in line with its ASB policy and was appropriate given the lack of any further reports.
In conclusion the landlord took some reasonable steps to respond to the reports of ASB, however it could have done more to keep the resident informed of the actions it was taking following her reports. It should have considered the resident’s vulnerability by way of a risk assessment and it should have been transparent with her that it could have drawn up an acceptable behaviour contract with the neighbour. As a consequence of the landlord’s failures the ASB issues were left unresolved for longer than they should have been. In addition the resident was not made aware of what the landlord was doing in response to her reports which would have caused her further distress. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the reports of ASB.
Although there is evidence that the landlord took steps to put things right for the resident, its actions did not go far enough. To acknowledge the impact of the errors identified on the resident, compensation of £250 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.

Response to the residents reports of services paid for via the service charge

The aspects of service charge included in the complaint have been addressed separately for clarity.

The cleanliness and condition of communal areas

The resident raised her concerns about the condition of the communal areas with the landlord on 1 January 2020. This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord responding to this, however it is noted that there was a gap of just over a year before the resident reported further issues with the condition of the building (27 January 2021). This Service expects residents to raise issues by way of a complaint within a reasonable period of time, which is normally considered to be within 6 months of the matters arising. As the resident did not pursue the matter further by way of submitting a complaint in 2020, this investigation only considers the landlord’s actions following the complaint made in Janaury 2021.
Following the resident’s complaint on 27 Janaury 2021, the landlord appropriately spoke to the managing agent the following day to discuss the resident’s concerns. The landlord advised the resident of the outcome of this discussion within a reasonable timeframe (3 February 2021) and explained that the managing agent undertook weekly cleaning of the communal areas and there was CCTV to try to deter items being dumped and other such behaviour. Whilst the date is not clear the landlord also undertook an inspection of the building shortly after it received the complaint which confirmed a lack of cleanliness. This was appropriate action for it to have taken.
When the resident challenged the assurances made by the managing agent, the landlord discussed the issues again with the managing agent who confirmed that it had attended the block following the residents reports and that cleaning had been carried out. Following this the landlord took part in a meeting with the managing agent and the resident to discuss her concerns in more detail. This was appropriate and showed a resident and resolution-focussed approach. This gave the resident the opportunity to have a named point of contact for the managing agent should she have further concerns.
Within the landlord’s stage 1 response, it explained that it would be conducting monthly estate inspections. It later added in its stage 2 response that it would monitor the managing agent and hold it to account for any breaches in service level in respect of repairs and maintenance. This was appropriate and demonstrated its commitment to resolving the issues and that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously. It followed through with this and inspected the building and met with the managing agent on 25 November 2021. It was proactive in keeping the resident informed of the outcome of this inspection, namely that it had noted areas of concern but these had been addressed by the managing agent.
Overall the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness and condition of the building and took appropriate steps to address the issues raised. It met with the managing agent in an appropriate timeframe, it conducted its own inspection of the building and it put in place appropriate steps to prevent such issues reoccurring. The landlord’s actions were appropriate in responding to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The lift

It is acknowledged by the landlord that the lift servicing the resident’s side of the building had been out of service since around 2020. It is noted by this Service that the resident did not raise this as a complaint until her escalation request of 3 February 2021. It is not clear if the landlord knew about the lift being out of service prior to the resident’s complaint. Following the complaint, the landlord took prompt action and liaised with the managing agent the same day. At that time, the landlord was advised by the managing agent that costly work was required to fix the lift which it needed to discuss with the landlord. Although the landlord did not have definite answers for the resident, it advised her the following day that it would keep her updated about the lift repair which was reasonable given the involvement of the management company.
Despite thelandlord’s assurance that it would keep the resident updated, this Service has not seen any evidence that it did so. Following the correspondence in February 2021, the next correspondence seen by this Service to the resident about the lift was the stage 2 response from November 2021, 9 months later. The landlord advised that the resident should hear about the lift within the next two weeks. It acknowledged that it had been out of service for a considerable period and said that the resident’s service charges for 2022/23 would be amended to exclude the costs of maintenance and servicing of the lifts.
This Service has not seen evidence of the resident having been contacted as promised and the next communication seen was from 14 December 2021 when the landlord advised that the lift repair date had yet to be confirmed. It is noted that the lift was subsequently fixed in Janaury 2022, almost a year after the resident raised it within her complaint. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord was in dispute with the managing company about the liability for the lift, it was not appropriate for the lift to be out of service for around two years with little communication to the resident about the reasons for the significant delay in having it repaired. This was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy which states that the landlord will keep the resident updated if it cannot undertake repairs within the stated timeframe.
As part of the dispute resolution principles, this Service expects landlord to put things right for residents when things have gone wrong. Although the landlord said it would remove the cost of the lift from the resident’s 2022/23 service charge, this does not address that fact that the resident paid towards the lift that was out of service for the years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022. In addition to the landlord’s offer not going far enough, it is concerning to note that the landlord only contacted the resident about crediting her account on 8 November 2023 after being asked for information by this Service.
As a result of the landlord not following through on its offer of redress within a timely manner, this caused frustration and distress for the resident. In addition the reimbursement of costs for the lift did not offer any additional remedy to reflect the resident’s inconvenience of not having access to the lift for this period of time. This amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact the landlord’s lack of communication and lack of redress had on the resident, compensation of £600 has been ordered. This is in addition to the amount credited to the resident’s account by the landlord. The £600 ordered takes into account the resident’s service charge paid whilst the lift was out of service for the duration of the time.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted her complaint on 27 Janaury 2021 and the landlord subsequently responded on 3 February 2021. This response however did not state that it was a stage 1 response nor did it include any signposting on how the resident could escalate her complaint. It is apparent that the resident reasonably concluded that it was a stage 1 response and therefore she asked for her complaint to be escalated the same day.
In response to her escalation request, the landlord advised that she could raise a complaint via its website. The landlord’s complaints policy makes it clear that complaints can be submitted a number of ways including by email and, as such, this advice was inappropriate. As the resident had appropriately escalated her complaint, the landlord should have responded at stage 2 within 20 working days (3 March 2021).
It was only after the resident indicated to the landlord that she wanted to refer her complaint to this Service that the landlord responded. When the landlord subsequently responded on 6 September 2021, it was not clear which stage of the complaints process the response was at. If it was a stage 2 response, this should have been clear and appropriate signposting to this service should have been included. The landlord subsequently responded at stage 2 on 10 November 2021. This was 9 months after the resident made her escalation request which was not reasonable and was not in line with the complaints policy.
Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the complaint, it did not provide an explanation for this or offer any suggestions of action it would take to ensure such a delay would not happen again in the future. In addition, it did not offer any redress to acknowledge the impact the delay had on the resident. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
To acknowledge the impact of the delay on the resident and that she had to involve this Service to prompt the landlord to respond to her complaint, compensation of £250 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact but there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident. This is considered to be a reasonable amount to reflect the distress caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the residents reports of services paid for via the service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s increase of the service charge is outside of the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord should have kept the resident informed of the actions it was taking following her reports of ASB. It should have considered the resident’s vulnerability by way of a risk assessment and it should have been transparent with her that it could have drawn up an acceptable behaviour contract for the neighbour.
The landlord did not keep the resident appropriately informed of the progress of the outstanding lift repair. Although it offered redress, it did not follow through with this offer. The offer of redress did not account for the lift having been out of service for two years and was not commensurate with the inconvenience caused.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of such:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident the total of £1100 compensation. This is made up as follows:
  1. £250 to acknowledge the impact of the errors identified in the landlord’s response to the ASB on the resident.
  2. £600 to acknowledge the impact of the lack of communication in respect of the lift and for the resident paying towards the lift which she could not use for two years.
  3. £250 to acknowledge the impact of the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.