Stonewater Limited (202121185)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121185

Stonewater Limited

5 October 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the communal areas of the building, including exterior and interior lighting, locks to the utility cupboard doors, and a repair to the external front door, being charged for through service charges.
2. Reports concerning inadequate grounds maintenance and cleaning services being charged for through service charges.
3. Associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of a flat on the first floor in a purpose built block.
According to the lease the resident is required to pay the annual rent and the service charge. The resident is required to all access (on reasonable notice) for the landlord to inspect the flat and also to repair neighbouring premises or shared facilities.

The landlord’s obligations under the terms of the lease are to “keep the building other than the flat in such repair as is reasonable having regard to the class and age of the building”. The landlord is required to “manage the estate, maintaining the facilities to a reasonable standard”.
In respect of service charges, the landlord is required to send estimated services charges for the accounting year ahead before the year begins. It should then “as soon as practicable” after the end of each accounting year supply copies of the accounts. The accounts should show the difference between the estimated and actual service cost. The landlord has provided this service with a copy of the service charge estimates and statements for the period covering the resident’s complaint.
Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of service charges sets out that “relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period:
1. Only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and
2. Where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard”.
A leaseholder may challenge the reasonableness of a service charge by apply to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The landlord’s service charge demands must include a summary of the leaseholder’s rights and obligations including the right to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal. The resident may wish to raise his case with the First-Tier Tribunal if he feels that the charges are unreasonable. The Ombudsman’s investigation does not include commentary on the reasonableness of the service charge as this falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal rather than the Ombudsman.
The resident has expressed concerns regarding the impact the situation has caused to his health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing as claims of personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings.
At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord had a three stage complaints policy. At stage one, an acknowledgement will be sent within two working days and a response sent within ten working days. This may be subject to extension “where appropriate”. If the timeframe is extended the landlord “will keep the complainant updated”. It will respond at stage two within ten working days. This timescale may be extended “where appropriate”. It will advise a resident of “when they will receive a response”. The landlord has a “designated persons stage – customer complaints panel” which “must be done within 15 working days of the response to the review stage being received. It states that the customer panel is “completely independent and recognised” by the landlord and the Housing Ombudsman Service. It states that the panel will “make their recommendations within five days of their meeting”. The landlord defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however, made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
The landlord’s compensation policy details its approach to compensation awards. It will fulfil “all statutory obligations” and offer discretionary payments. It will not “pay compensation for an event that occurred more than six months prior to the matter being reported” unless there are “mitigating circumstances”. It will consider compensation for communal services “where customers pay for a support service or service to a communal area, and we have failed to provide that service”. It will “recompense customers with a refund proportionate to the amount of time for which they were without the service”. A variable service charge “will be adjusted accordingly to account for the period of non-service”.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy details:
1. Emergency repairs “those which pose a threat to the safety of our customers, their homes or their communities” are to be completed within 24 hours.
2. Non-emergency repairs are to be completed within 28 days from “receiving the customer’s notification”.
3. Major repairs are to be completed within 42 days “where there is a significant amount of work required beyond the original repair”.
4. It will maintain “clear and continuous communication with our customers, via their preferred communication channel, to ensure they know when a reported repair will be completed and confirm that this time is convenient to our customer”.
5. For leaseholders the “cost or part of the cost, of works undertaken by Stonewater will be added to a leasehold customer’s annual service charge”.
The resident has referred to artificial light nuisance. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 requires local authorities to consider complaints about artificial light from premises if the light could be classed as a ‘statutory nuisance’. A statutory nuisance may exist if the artificial light unreasonably or substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of a home or other premises, or if the artificial light may injure health or be likely to injure health. The resident may wish to report this to the local authority who may consider what action may be taken.
The landlord has provided this service with records of grounds maintenance visits that were carried out from the period six months prior to the resident’s complaint. This indicates grounds maintenance being carried out fortnightly, apart from two missed services in August 2021 and October 2021. It details that a quality inspection was carried out on 28 July 2021. The landlord has also provided copies of its communal cleaning services records which indicates that cleaning was carried out fortnightly. It details that quality inspections were carried out on 8 April 2021 and 9 August 2021. It is not clear from the records whether the standards for these services were recorded as satisfactory.
The resident has advised this Service that he initially raised the lighting issues referred to in his complaint of 8 September 2021 to his landlord on 29 August 2020. He reported that the lock to the electric cupboard in October 2020. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord of 8 September 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising.
The landlord has mentioned the term “CRM” which stands for customer relationship management. This is a case management system which allows housing providers to store and manage data and this is referred to within the summary of events part of this report below.

Summary of events

The landlord sent an internal email on 1 March 2021. In this, the landlord mentioned that the resident had raised an issue with the main control cupboard key being changed. The email asked whether keys were to be provided or if the resident was “misinformed”. The landlord advised that it had “looked through CRM and can’t see a task”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 March 2021. In this it referred to the issue of the key for the main control cupboard that the resident had reported and that it would contact the resident.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its repairs contractor on 31 March 2021. It recognised the need for key performance indicators which were agreed in relation to repairs and customer satisfaction. It was reported that there were issues in correctly recording the repair completion date.
The landlord’s CRM records show that the resident raised an issue on 8 April 2021 with regard to the communal lights “not working” correctly in the car park and to adjust the timer. The resident also reported the issue with the lock change to the water meter cupboard. It was reported that the resident was concerned that if there was a leak no one would be able to isolate the water.
The landlord held a contract meeting on 8 April 2021 with its cleaning contractor. No issues were raised regarding the contractor’s performance in relation to key performance indicators. The meeting records detail that it was a monthly meeting. The landlord’s records detail that a quality inspection took place on 8 April 2021 for this service. However, the record does not indicate whether the standards were confirmed as satisfactory.
The resident chased up the landlord on 15 April 2021 as he had not been contacted concerning the lock which he had said was reported in October 2020.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its repairs contractor on 6 May 2021. The landlord concerning missed appointments without contact from the contractor to the resident concerned. There was an issue concerning a lack of update in respect of follow up repairs. The contractor raised issues with a lack of detailed description on works orders and correct codes so that it could obtain the materials in advance. It had been agreed that a further service level agreement was required.
The resident chased up the landlord again on 12 May 2021 as he stated no one had been in touch. The landlord’s records detail that the “original task has been closed but no one has contacted the tnt yet” (sic).
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its cleaning contractor on 13 May 2021. This did not detail any specific issues related to the block containing the resident’s property.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its grounds maintenance contractor on 18 May 2021. The minute detailed that escalation points for poor performance were discussed and key performance indicators which would be developed and would be agreed.
The landlord’s CRM records detail that the resident “called in AGAIN!” (sic) on 21 May 2021 with regard to the lock change to the water cupboard door. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether a phone call had been made as it stated “not sure resident could hear me”. However, the record details that the landlord contacted the resident on 25 May 2021 and confirmed an appointment for 25 May 2021. The record does not detail whether this was by phone or email.
The landlord then left a message for the resident on 26 May 2021 advising the resident “to buy some FB keys online if he requires access”. The landlord’s records detail that the resident called in the same day as he was angry with the landlord’s response.
The landlord’s CRM records of 2 June 2021 detail that it had inspected the water meter cupboards. It detailed that these were open and that there were no access issues.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its cleaning contractor on 10 June 2021. There were no substantive issues raised regarding the key performance indicators other than summer traffic impacting the length of the day and whether wider communication was needed to residents about this.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its grounds maintenance contractor on 15 June 2021. The minute details that the contractor was given the opportunity to respond to some negative feedback which “would be taken into account before the figures for the month were finalised”.
The resident messaged the landlord on 23 June 2021 as he did not see that anyone had turned up to look at the external lights. He said the lights were “still on blasting the full intensity light at the building”. The landlord messaged the resident the same day to apologise that no one came and advised that it could see the contractor was due to attend on 25 June 2022.
The landlord requested a recall for the contractor to reattend concerning the external light on 28 June 2022. The record details that the “exact same problem is being reported”.
The resident chased up the landlord regarding the external communal lights on 29 June 2021. The record does not indicate whether this was by phone or in person. However, the record details that the “resident is losing a lot of sleep due to flashing on/off lights. Please attend ASAP” (sic). It also states that the resident would go to the council with an artificial light disturbance complaint. An appointment was made for 23 July 2021. The appointment was then changed to 14 July 2021 following further messages from the resident.
The landlord emailed internally on 15 July 2021 copying in its contractor, with regard to a report from the resident to chase up a works order regarding the electrical cupboard. It advised that the contractor had attended the same day and had been “unable to access electrical cupboard to isolate supply to communal lighting”. The contractor requested a contact for the “building and keys”. The landlord in discussing the resident stated that “we are being bombarded with Facebook messages from him and he is demanding that we raise a formal complaint”. It would assist the contractor “with their request so that work can be completed” so that “we avoid raising this as a formal complaint”.
The landlord raised a works order on 20 July 2021 with a 24 hour emergency timescale to “change locks on electric cupboard and electrician to resolve issues with communal lighting. Lights outside stay on all the time, these need adjusting and lights on floor two staying on all the time not dimming when should, as discussed and agreed”. It advised “this is a complaint please resolve”. The landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2021 advising that it had tried to ring. The resident replied asking the landlord to try again, however the call went through to voicemail. It is not clear whether the landlord left a message.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 23 July 2021 as the resident had reported that the “lock change had been done on the wrong door (the water cupboard as opposed to the electrical cupboard)”. The landlord advised of a request to “change locks on electric cupboard and electrician to resolve issues with communal lighting”. It advised that the resident had not been supplied with a key for the water cupboard. It asked the contract to ensure that the resident could access the electric cupboard. It also asked that the contractor “reprogramme the outside lights as requested on the works order” as a recall.
The contractor emailed back the same day to advise that it had called at the property on 22 July 2021 and had “managed to gain access to the electrical cupboard via a resident”. It had “replaced the light fitting as required”. The contractor stated that “we didn’t need to change the lock in the end, as all residents have keys for the cupboard mentioned”. It advised that its electrician had “said the lights only came on with the PIR sensors, and that they weren’t all on when he was there yesterday”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 July 2021 with an update to advise of the access gained to the electrical cupboard, and the repair to the light fitting. The resident emailed back the same day to advise “nothing has changed”. He stated that the “hallway lights all still on 24/7, outdoor car park lights constantly on full, still being switched off during the day by a resident to attempt to save electricity”. He queried why the contractor left the site and why “they changed the locks on the water cupboard when they requested locks on the electrical cupboard to be changed”. He stated that the landlord had agreed that this would not be charged to residents due to the error.
The contractor emailed the landlord on 27 July 2021 to advise that the works order for the electrical work had been “closed due to access issues”. It advised that a new works order would be required and to detail the “best way to gain access”.
The landlord’s surveyor and resident exchanged some emails on 28 July 2021 and the landlord’s surveyor advised the resident that he had forwarded the details to a planning manager and was waiting for a timeline. The resident requested that the contractor be informed “exactly what we want them to do (outdoor lighting too bright at night. Not dimming and flashing on and off. On all day)”. He advised of the lights on floor two “on all day and night. Should be on timed switches”. He mentioned again about the “wrong lock changed” on the cupboard door.
A number of emails were sent on 28 July 2021. One internal email advised that “a number of flats are also keeping an eye out” for the contractor “so they are being watched none of us are particularly happy with them”. The resident had also requested the contractor undertake the lighting repair “pretty fast considering the duration of the issue and increasing waste of electricity”. A further internal email the same day advised that a “carpenter and electrician” were attending the site on 30 July 2021 “to carry out the outstanding repairs”.
The landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident on 6 August 2021 to advise of a visit with the “electrical supervisor” on 11 August 2021. The resident then emailed the surveyor on 11 August 2021 for an update. The surveyor emailed back the same day to advise that it was agreed that the “wiring is a mess, and the fact that the second floor is constantly on”. He advised that this would take “some investigation work” and that the electrician would come back to him with a “schedule of works” the following day. In a further email of 12 August 2021 the landlord’s surveyor advised the resident that he was “unable to commit to a rapid fix without knowing the extent of the work involved”. The resident emailed back the same day to ask why it had taken “almost a year to get to this point”.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 17 August 2021 and 1 September 2021 with regard to the lighting issue. The resident advised in one of the emails of 18 August 2021 that “the outside lights have recently become a lightshow of strobe lights last night”. The landlord advised the resident on 20 August 2021 that the issue would be chased up. In a further email of 26 August 2021 after a chase up from the resident on 26 August 2021, the landlord advised that a “job has been raised for an electrician to attend to investigate”.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its grounds maintenance contractor on 31 August 2021. This identified a number of issues with customer satisfaction and that the contractor would respond to “instances of negative feedback which would be taken into account” by the landlord. There were no specific issues recorded relating to the block containing the resident’s property.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its cleaning contractor on 1 September 2021. This did not detail issues with regard to the block containing the resident’s property. It also held a partnering meeting with its repairs contractor the same day. This detailed a drop in customer satisfaction. Its contractor would send a letter to all the residents to “apologise for the level of service over the last few months”. It would carry out a trial of “more robust post inspection”. The minute reported that the main issues raised in formal complaints were to do with outstanding repairs, cancellations at short notice and missed appointments.
The resident emailed on 1 September 2021 to chase up the landlord. The landlord’s surveyor emailed internally on 2 September 2021 advising of the works order raised for the electrician to “investigate the communal/outside lighting at this address”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 September 2021 querying his service charges. He requested “proof of works done”, along with statements and receipts/records of the work done and utilities bills”. He referred to charges that had been made for cleaning services, “a massive lack of maintenance and we also have an ongoing issue regarding the lighting that was brought to your attention last November”. The resident advised that a surveyor had told him that “we would not be charged for this electricity. We have been”. He advised that he would be submitting a formal complaint.
The resident submitted a formal stage one complaint on 8 September 2021. In this he detailed:
1. His report that had been made with regard to the “water cupboard lock being changed without any notification (or replacement keys which to this day is still the case)”. The resident advised that the landlord’s surveyor had mentioned that the “lock was changed so the maintenance team can gain access to the electric cupboard”. He advised that the landlord had told him that the lock was to keep “rough sleepers out of the room”. He advised that he was charged for the work that had been carried out incorrectly.
2. He advised that the contractor “a few months back” had gained entry to the electrical cupboard and that after the visit that the light in the bike room remained “permanently on”. He advised that “during this time the second-floor lighting has experienced a fault and remains permanently on”.
3. At the same time he had reported the issue with the outdoor lights that had been replaced in 2020. He reported that “they don’t turn off and that during the night they flash from full intensity to part intensity and sometimes shut off. He stated that the previous lights were “pedestal lights with shrouds which stopped the lights from shining onto the building and into windows”. However, the new lights were “dome lights that shine the harsh and extremely bright and often strobing light onto the side of the building”. He reported that “this has caused a lot of issues with my sleeping pattern”. He stated that the landlord had advised that the issue would be “sorted within 24 hours” and that an amount for “wasted electricity would be deducted from our costs”.
4. He requested a “summary of the costs of the service charge and to see the proof of costs given”. He advised that “during the period of lockdown we had no cleaners (indoor and outdoor) for months” and his own windows had not been cleaned. He disputed the electricity cost and advised that he was told by the landlord “we wouldn’t be charged for the wasted electricity due to your failures with the external and internal lighting issues which we very clearly have”.
5. The door entry system was reported as not working properly and that the “door won’t close on its own unless you slam it. Sometimes the buzzers won’t work too”.
6. He advised that he had made a number of phone calls over a period of time from 29 August 2020 to 3 September 2021, and emails sent between 22 July 2021 to 3 September 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 September 2021 to acknowledge receipt of the complaint and to advise that a complaint handler would send a further acknowledgement. This was sent on 13 September 2021 advising that a complaint response would be sent by 27 September 2021.
The landlord raised a works order on 13 September 2021 with regard to the communal front door advising “door cannot be secured”. It advised that the “door won’t open from the inside on the first floor which is a fire hazard”. The estimated completion date was 11 October 2021. The order was requested to be cancelled by the landlord’s contractor the same day. After the landlord questioned why this was the case, the contractor emailed back on 15 September 2021 to advised that “it would appear that it is the plastic on the door, not the door entry system. We wouldn’t cover the actual plastic of the door”.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 16 September 2021 to update on the issues raised by the resident in his complaint. It advised:
1. That the initial lighting visit “was an emergency in February 2020”. It had visited in March 2020 and found that the “lights were working as intended and staying on, they operated via a time switch”. The “next electrical works order was attended in March 2021”. It advised that the lights had been fitted by another company and it had recommended “for them to return and correct”. It referred this back to the landlord on 10 March 2021. It received a works order to attend and rectify and attended on 18 May 2021. Its engineer advised that the “lights appeared to be wired incorrectly and he would need to attend to correct this at a different time, with more time allowance as the visit would involve taking each light apart”. The work was completed on 4 June 2021. The engineer advised that he had “reduced the setting on the lights pointing to the bedroom to 75%, the others remained at 100%”. It stated that the lights were “operating correctly before task completion of the job”. It advised that the landlord’s surveyor had requested a further check on the lighting to the “bin store and communal areas”. An appointment was due to be arranged. It was unable to trace a works order for the “lighting problems specifically on the second floor”.
2. It attended as an emergency for a “door that wouldn’t open” on 9 September 2021. However, this was referred back to the landlord on 10 September 2021 as it was an “electronic door entry”.
The landlord emailed internally on 27 September 2021 to advise that its contractor had not received a works order it says was raised on 13 September 2021 regarding the communal front door and that it had a “customer on the phone chasing”. It requested a new works order to be raised as an emergency 24 hour “so they can send someone out”. A chase up internal email was sent on 28 September 2021 for an update.
The resident emailed the landlord on four separate occasions between 29 September 2021 and 12 October 2021 for an update on “the enormous list of things to sort out on this building”. He advised that “the front door is still not secure and anyone can walk in”. He advised in the later email “I’m quite surprised to not have any reply whatsoever or letter from the complaints either”.
The landlord’s records detail that its contractor reset the timer for the hallway lighting on 7 October 2021. It fitted two new lamps and advised the landlord that it had resolved the issues of the internal lights being on all the time and the issue concerning the external lighting.
The landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident back on 12 October 2021 to advise that he would look into the matters reported by the resident and report back. The landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident on 14 October 2021 to advise that he had spoken to the contractor’s supervisor however he was going to “try an alternative route”.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its repairs contractor on 13 October 2021. This detailed that the customer satisfaction had reduced. There were “concerns around the administration of follow on works and the potential for these to not get priority over new orders”. The themes of incomplete works, attendance dates being moved at short notice and it referred to follow on works not being correctly booked. The landlord advised of the “contractual obligation of 24 hours follow on work bookings”. It recorded that the complaints had reduced and that “generally the standard of work has improved”.
The landlord’s surveyor emailed its contractor on 14 October 2021 regarding the external and internal lights, lock on the electrical cupboard door along with the front door lock. It advised the contractor that the “locksmith came out and jammed a screw into the latch. Doesn’t lock at all. Believed that door wouldn’t open from inside”. It advised the contractor that “this is part of an ongoing complaint and still no closer to getting resolved”. It asked “please can we come up with a plan of action to get these works resolved, the customer understandably (and other residents) is at their wits end due to the length of time this has been going on for”.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its cleaning contractor on 15 October 2021. This did not detail any formal complaints raised regarding its performance and issues connected with the block containing the resident’s property.
The landlord’s internal email of 15 October 2021 advised that the resident was chasing for an update regarding the front external door. The landlord advised that its original contractor had been assigned a works order. However, the contractor advised “it’s an electric door” so it required a different contractor. It had contacted the second contractor who advised that it had emailed the landlord on 13 September 2021 asking “who needs to attend” and had “heard nothing since”. A chase up was requested.
A further internal email was sent on 18 October 2021 copied to a contractor who was asked if a quote could be made. It advised that “it appears to be a communal front door linked into a door entry system that may need replacing”.
The landlord’s complaint handler emailed the resident on 20 October 2021 to apologise for the “extensive delay in providing you with this response”. The delay had been addressed in the stage one response which had been posted. The landlord’s stage one response of 20 October 2021 detailed:
1. An apology for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
2. An apology for the “service failures you have experienced” in “failing to resolve the outstanding repairs, replacing the wrong door to the communal door and leaving the communal entrance door unsecure”. It advised that the contractor attended on 7 October 2021 to “reset hallway lights and sensitive timers”. It had fitted two new lamps and fixed the outdoor terminal confirming the works had been completed.
3. It would raise the contractor performance at its performance meetings.
4. It apologised for performance during staff annual leave and it advised it had “implemented changes in our team to deal with workload during colleague’s absences”.
5. With regard to the grounds maintenance and cleaning service charges, its income team had “confirmed that this will be taken into account at the end of year reconciliation and alterations will be made in your next years’ service charges to reflect the lack of service you have received this year”.
6. It offered £250 compensation comprising £100 for the “delay in providing this response” and £150 in respect of its contractor’s performance.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 21 October 2021 to advise that an inspection had been carried out that day of the front door. The “handle release and mortice latch are damaged”. The contractor advised that “this one is a tricky one as to where we go with it, because we can replace the adams rite handle and latch, but we couldn’t guarantee getting the electric release working as the frame is bent in/damaged creating a bigger gap between the lock and the door”. It stated that “if we get the lock securing, the main issue is the door leaf itself”. It advised that the “door has dropped” and that “fixing the lock won’t mean anything if the door won’t close without being forced shut”. It suggested checking “if the internal closer is repairable first, and if so we can look to sort the handle and lock out then? If it’s not repairable, we can advise then”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2021. He advised that the “front door is the same as it had been since the ‘emergency locksmith’ came out”.
The resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage two on 21 October 2021. He rejected the landlord’s assertion that issues had been resolved. He advised that “the problems are still present and include, the outdoor (nuisance artificial light (you’re not allowed to point lights at buildings) are still flashing on and off and various intensities requiring intervention from building members to turn off during the day”. He advised that “the bike shed (the room which leads to the electrical cupboard) light is on all the time”. He stated that “the door to the electrical cupboard is still unlocked and contains the original locks. The water cupboard is still unlocked and still contains the other incorrect lock”. He advised that the “second floor lights are still constantly on”. He stated that one of the bulbs “is still out”. He stated that the “front door is still insecure and badly damaged and maintained”. He advised that the landlord had charged for the “cleaners, windows and electricity costs despite being reassured this wouldn’t be charged to us”.
The landlord’s surveyor emailed the resident on 22 October 2021 to advise that the email he had seen from the contractor advised that the contractor was “looking into whether internal closer is repairable as it’s damaged”. The surveyor advised that if it is repairable “they can obviously repair the lock, if not then I guess they’ll have to replace it”.
The landlord emailed the contractor on 22 October 2021 to instruct it to carry out the “repairs to the door furniture first” to “see where that takes us”. The contractor emailed back the same day to advise that the work was booked in for 29 October 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 October 2021 concerning compensation offered in the stage one response to query whether this would mean “full and final settlement of my complaint” which was not the case. The landlord emailed back the same day to confirm that accepting compensation “will not conclude or finalise your complaint or have an impact on our stage two response”.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint acknowledgement letter to the resident on 25 October 2021. It would “aim to respond within ten working days which will be 8 November 2021”.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its grounds maintenance contractor on 29 October 2021. This reported some issues with customer satisfaction and that some complaints from the landlord to the contractor were concerning land not managed by the contractor.
The landlord chased up the contractor regarding the external front door on 6 November 2021 for an update as “tenants are chasing”. The contractor emailed back on 8 November 2021 to advise the landlord that it was waiting for the handle lockset to arrive and it would chase the supplier.
The landlord’s complaint handler emailed the resident on 8 November 2021 to advise that it needed to extend the deadline for the complaint response by five working days and apologised for the delay.
The landlord’s complaint handler advised in an internal email of 10 November 2021 that a phone conversation had been held with the resident. It advised that the resident wished to add some additional points and that it had tried to “manage his expectations”. It stated it may not be able to answer all the points. It advised that the resident had stated that the lights were still broken and that the front door was not fixed. He stated that he had been informed that the work was “not a priority to fix” and expressed his disappointment given the security issues. The door was “even worse than before” after the visit from an emergency locksmith.
The landlord emailed the contractor regarding the front door on 11 November 2021. The contractor emailed back the same day to advise of a number of issues with the door lock and key barrel. It advised it had “removed the door entry lock to leave the door open continuously until the lock is change once this is done we will come back and reinstate the door entry lock”. It advised the landlord that “the lock needs to be done urgently asap” by the landlord’s “personnel”. The contractor advised that the original contractor would need to fix the door “before we can go back and reinstate the lock”. Once the door was fixed it would “arrange for the engineer to go back asap”.
The landlord sent further internal emails on 11 November 2021 concerning the communal front door and advised that the last order issued to its contractor to repair the door was on 9 September 2021. It would “raise a new one now and update asap”.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its cleaning contractor on 11 November 2021. This reported no formal complaints. There were no specific issues related to the block containing the resident’s property.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 12 November 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the service received which “clearly falls below the standard of service we aim to deliver and doesn’t demonstrate how much we really do value our customers”.
2. With regard to the communal and parking lighting, it advised of an original repair that had been raised on 24 August 2021 and that its contractor had attended on 7 October 2021 and had “reset the hallway lights, sensitivity and timer, fitted two new lamps in hallway lights and fixed an issue with the outdoor lights not working”. The landlord advised that the contractor “informed us that the lights were left in functional order”. It apologised for the delay in the repair. It had arranged for an electrician to attend again on 18 November 2021 to “address all outstanding issues with the lighting”. The electrician would “address” what was deemed to be a “fault with the sensors” in the car park, though the landlord did not “believe the lighting break any legal requirements”. It advised that “if the lighting is impacting on sleep or causing significant disturbance, please provide us with further detail so we can investigate further”.
3. It apologised for the delay with the regard to the door repair. It advised that “the works involve two contracting partners and unfortunately the communication between them has been poor leading to delay”. One contractor was due to attend 12 November 2021 to “identify what parts are required” and both were due to attend on 15 November 2021 to “resolve the issue collaboratively”.
4. It was due to rectify the issue with the electrical cupboard and water cupboard on 18 November 2021.
5. It had arranged for a credit of £5.00 to be placed on the resident’s account “to cover the unnecessary electricity consumption as a result of the faulty lights”. It would have usually “identified the actual consumption but in this instance, given the values involved, we have applied an over-estimate based on your communal electricity charge”.
6. It advised that the communal windows had been cleaned in February 2021, May 2021 and September 2021. With regard to grounds maintenance, it advised that a visit had taken place on 2 November 2021. However, it advised that “three services were missed at the scheme March 2020, August 2021 and October 2021”. It apologised for this and advised this was due to a “staffing issue”. It advised that “communication is key and we should have kept our customers updated”.
7. It offered £300 compensation with regard to the “delays in repairs, having to escalate the issue and chase service, missed services”.
8. It advised that if the resident was unhappy with the response, he could request a “review by our customer complaints panel”. Alternatively, the resident could contact this service.
The resident emailed the landlord’s surveyor on 12 November 2021 with regard to the landlord’s stage two complaint response. He stated he was “extremely insulted with the contents” and that it was not “factually correct they haven’t included any of the previous call out charges for the last 18 months and the failed attempts of fixing any of the issues”. He stated that the lights installed had not made “a difference and the light bulbs replaced is a lie as the one on floor two is still broken”. He advised that the outdoor lights have been an issue “since July 2020”. He advised that the front door statement was also incorrect and that the “operative told me he was here to actually fix the door not to check for parts”. He disagreed with the amount of refund offered for the service charge of £5. The landlord had “paid for three sets” of grounds maintenance “despite no one even being present in the company to do it”. This demonstrated a “quality assurance” issue.
The landlord emailed internally on 12 November 2021 with regard to the communal front door advising it had arranged for both contractors to do an visit on 15 November 2021 and that “other works” were to take place on 18 November 2021 for the “electrician and carpenter”.
The landlord’s contractor emailed the landlord on 15 November 2021 regarding the external front door to advise that “both operatives” from the two contractors had attended that day. It advised that “there is nothing wrong with the door and the issue is with the intercom”. It had checked the “door is secure from outside” and also checked that the door could be opened and confirmed both. The contractor stated that he had arranged video footage of the door and photographs. The contractor’s electrician and carpenter would meet the landlord’s surveyor on 18 November 2021.
After a further email from the landlord on 15 November 2021 to ask if the repair to the door lock and intercom were fixed, the landlord’s contractor emailed back the same day to advise that the original contractor had repaired the door lock 12 November 2021 and the door entry lock had been fitted as this had been removed. It advised “fitted the lock tested ok, door secure”.
An exchange of emails between 17 November 2021 and 19 November 2021 between the landlord’s surveyor and resident detailed that a couple of lights were on order. The resident advised in an email on 19 November 2021 that a light was “flashing all night like nothing has changed”. He stated that the electrical cupboard door handle was not fixed. He advised that the “inside lights turning off for now although floor one flashes a lot and floor two bulb is still dead”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2021 and 1 December 2021 for an update as “things have gone quiet again”. The landlord’s surveyor emailed back on 1 December 2021 to advise the resident that he had “visited site when it was dark to see for myself so now they will be changing all of the lights flickering”. He confirmed that the electrician would be attending on 7 December 2021 to “complete the faulty lights”.
The landlord’s internal email exchange of 30 November 2021 concerning a meeting that was to be held about the resident’s complaint advised that in respect of the door repair “we’re accusing it of being a fault” of the contractors “but we should be blaming ourselves as they should be communicating with us not each other”. With regard to the electrical and water cupboard it advised that “there is still two invoices for two locks, even though only one lock was replaced and it was the wrong cupboard”. The resident had reported that “loads of invoices are missing”. The resident did not believe that a refund of £5 per resident was sufficient to cover the cost of “25 lights constantly on for two years”. There was no invoice for the cleaning contractors and it was reported by the resident that “three visits were missed last year so how can we justify an increase in charge”.
The landlord’s surveyor held a meeting on 1 December 2021 with its contractor’s supervisor. This did not report any particular issues with the block containing the resident’s property.
The landlord held a partnership meeting with its repairs contractor on 3 December 2021 which was followed up on 6 December 2021 due to additional time needed. The landlord reported that customer satisfaction had fallen below its target of 84%. The minute recorded that its contractor would incur “financial penalties” for its key performance indicators including customer satisfaction. It reported 17 formal complaints that had been escalated to investigate in November 2021.
The landlord held a partnering meeting with its cleaning contractor on 7 December 2021. There were no issues raised in respect of the contractor’s performance. The landlord also held a meeting with its grounds maintenance contractor the same day where it raised some issues with customer satisfaction and it would provide a report to its contractor for comment.
The resident emailed the landlord’s surveyor on 10 December 2021 to advise that following an earlier phone call he had checked a light and it was “still non-functional”. He had provided photographs from the same day and one from 20 October 2021.
An internal email of 13 December 2021 detailed a telephone call and a report from another two residents concerning lighting. The landlord stated that a report had been made that “numerous issues with communal lighting are still outstanding”. A works order had been raised on 6 December 2021 regarding “lights in bike shed and floors one and two being permanently on (when ought to be off at night, or at least motion sensor)”. This was “still open”. A further works order had been raised with regard to the “main entrance door light”. The email did not detail the date of the order or who made the order. The light was flickering and the landlord advised that “two external lights are on order” and wished to enquire as to whether this follow on work to this particular works order or whether it related to “two unrelated lights”. It advised that a recall may be required.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 13 December 2021 for an update on the works orders referred to in its internal email of the same date. The contractor emailed back the same day to advise that the works order for the lights on the first floor had been “task completed”. The works order raised by the landlord’s surveyor in relation to “lighting issues” did not “specify in what location” so the contractor was not able to confirm “if this is a recall”. The works order raised on 6 December 2021 had been “paired” with another order that was scheduled for 16 December 2021.
The landlord sent a further stage two review complaint response on 15 December 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology in respect of the communication issues.
2. It apologised for the “longstanding issues you and your neighbours have experienced with lights in your building and surrounding areas”. It advised “we really don’t think this is good enough and we do want to make it right”. In order to “permanent resolve the issues” it had commissioned a third-party contractor to “audit all the existing fittings in the block and change any components required”. It had repaired the light on the second floor and the bike cupboard. It’s surveyor would meet its contractor on site on 16 December 2021 to address “issues with the sensors in the bin store area”. It had checked the position of the external lights “with an independent electrician”. This “confirmed that the location is legal and that the illumination provided is within normal parameters”.
3. It advised that the “door is now safely repaired”. It apologised for the delay experienced by the resident. It referred to the “poor communication” between its two contractors. It had “shared our concerns about the quality of workmanship, specifically the issues with the screw” to ensure that its “contractors learn and improve”.
4. It apologised that the contractor “mistakenly changed the lock on the water cupboard instead of the electrical cupboard”. It would ensure that the resident had access to the water cupboard and “it will be left open”. It advised that the resident would not be charged for the job as “this was our error”. It had replaced the lock on the electrical cupboard.
5. It would refund the grounds maintenance for two occasions in August and October 2021 when “our contractors did not attend”. It had identified that the contractor did not attend in March 2020 “due to lockdown rules”. It had committed to “keep paying our suppliers during the pandemic provided they brought their grounds maintenance service back to standard as quickly as possible”. It had spoken to its contractor to “ensure this doesn’t happen again”.
6. It had “a number of quality checking measures in place and we are revisiting our repairs policy, processes and ways of working to make sure these are fit for purpose”. This would include “doing post inspections on repairs over a certain value as well as in cases such as yours where customers have been let down and need reassurance that the work is done right first time”.
7. It apologised that the resident did not receive the updates on 19 November 2021 as promised in its stage two complaint response of 12 November 2021.
8. It reaffirmed the compensation offer of £350 made in its stage two response.
The resident emailed the landlord’s surveyor on 15 December 2021 to state his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final response. He advised that the light on floor two was to be checked on his return to work as the letter indicated that this was fixed. He advised of the outdoor lights which he would bring to the “council’s attention”. He referred to the service charges which were “still not accounted for”. He mentioned the landlord’s lack of “building management and inspections”.
The resident referred his complaint to his MP as a designated person to pass on to this service on 15 December 2021 as he was dissatisfied with his landlord’s final complaint response.

Events following the end of the internal complaints process

Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord’s complaint handler emailed the resident on 23 December 2021 to offer a “virtual meeting with the relevant senior managers so that all your concerns can be discussed” in the new year.
The landlord instructed a different contractor and raised a purchase order on 4 March 2022 to replace the emergency fittings outside of the resident’s property and to have “light and motion sensitive” fittings to reduce the time the lights would be on.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 March 2022 with regard to his service charges for 2020 to 2021. It advised that it had deducted £35.37 in respect of the no access issue to the electric cupboard. In a further letter the same date to the resident the landlord advised that it was “unable to include invoices for our grounds maintenance and communal cleaning costs, this is because they are part of a larger contract covering multiple schemes”. It provided a ledger entry which “confirms the breakdown of charges you are liable for”.
The landlord provided a further “final response” at stage two on 5 April 2022. It advised that repairs and “upgrade to the internal lights” would be completed on 11 April 2022. The external light had been turned off which it states the resident had advised was an improvement. It apologised that this issue had remained outstanding for “longer than necessary”. It would undertake “fortnightly visits for the next two months” to the block to undertake necessary checks. It stated that the lock repair was completed. It had completed the door repairs and would refund a service charge of £35.37 for a “no access” visit by the contractor. It had posted the service charge information requested. It would provide invoices and some further information. It offered £550 compensation which “includes the period you have chased full completion since our stage two review completed in December”. It offered the resident the opportunity to meet with its directors.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the building, including exterior and interior lighting, utility cupboards, the fire alarms and front door being charged for through service charges.

This investigation has considered the landlord’s own policy above and timeliness of its response to the issues reported by the resident in light of this. It has also considered the landlord’s communication and contract management.
The resident reported the issue of the lock being changed on 1 March 2021 to the water cupboard and despite chasing the matter with the landlord, an appointment was not made until 21 June 2021, over three months’ later. This was outside of the landlord’s policy timescales. The landlord gave the resident mixed messages evidencing communication issues. On the one had it had advised of an appointment for the lock and then left a message that the resident could buy his own key if he needed access. The landlord’s communication to the resident during this time was inadequate and one occasion dismissive after he had contacted “AGAIN” (sic). The lack of response by the landlord meant that the resident had to chase the matter up several times taking additional time and causing him inconvenience. This was unreasonable.
There was clearly some confusion with the contractor changing the wrong cupboard door. It is not clear whether this was wholly the contractor’s mistake or whether the landlord’s communication leading to the mistake being made had been a factor. The landlord’s contractor indicated though that access was not an issue when it attended on 22 July 2021.
With regard to the lighting, the resident advised this service and the landlord that he had originally reported issues with the external communal lighting when it was installed in 2020 as mentioned in his complaint. He then raised the issue on 8 April 2021 concerning the timer and the lights not coming on at the right times. Despite the contractor calling out and advising that the lights were on a sensor, the resident confirmed on 27 July 2021 that “nothing has changed”. The landlord’s surveyor advised on 11 August 2021 that a schedule of works would be submitted the day after and that the wiring was a mess. A record of a schedule of works has not been seen by this Service so it is not clear whether this was provided. Given the ongoing issues with the lighting, it would have been good practice for the landlord to visit itself, however, the records only indicate this happening on 1 December 2021. This was especially important given that the resident had reported the impact the issue was having on his sleep. He had stated that this was impacting negatively on his health and wellbeing. The landlord was aware of this impact when the resident referred to this on 29 June 2021. However, in its stage two response of 12 November 2021 the landlord did not seem to be aware of the impact as it had stated that if this was impacting the resident’s sleep, he should let the landlord know. He had already done this so again communication issues were apparent. Though the landlord had taken some action to address the external lighting, it failed to remedy the issue within its repairs policy timescales. It failed to provide a lasting and enduring remedy to the issue that was reportedly having a detrimental effect on the resident.
Turning to the fault with the internal lighting, the landlord raised a works order on 20 July 2021 as a 24 hour emergency repair. The resident then referred to the issue in his stage one complaint of 8 September 2021. The landlord’s contractor called on 7 October 2021 which was outside of its policy timeframe for an urgent repair. However, the resident reported that the issue was not resolved and remained unresolved over the five-month period up until the landlord’s stage two complaint response of 15 December 2021. This was clearly outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale and left the resident pursuing the matter taking additional time and causing him inconvenience. It was further evidenced that the issue was not resolved when two different residents reported issues with the internal lighting as referenced by the landlord in the email of 13 December 2021. This evidenced that the issues were wider than simply changing bulbs and required further investigation.
The issue concerning the external front door was still unresolved when the resident referred his complaint to his MP on 15 December 2021. This meant that from the date it was reported to the landlord on 8 September 2021 up until this point the external front door was not as secure as it should be. This was causing unnecessary distress to the resident who was understandably concerned about intruders. Communication issues that were evident throughout this investigation meant that a request had to be made on 27 September 2021 for a new works order with a different contractor. This was only in response to the resident chasing the work up. On the whole, it was the resident who had to pursue the matter with the landlord. Whilst the landlord did provide some updates and chase up the contractors its oversight was lacking. It could be seen that both contractors engaged were passing the issue back and forth. It would have been appropriate therefore for the landlord to take ownership and oversight of the work and to inspect it at an earlier point. This would have ensured satisfactory completion within a reasonable timeframe. This was more unreasonable given the time of year coming into the winter period when it would be darker in the evenings causing further security concerns. The contractor confirmed that the original contractor had repaired the door lock on 12 November 2021. This meant that this particular repair took 47 working days which was considerably outside of the landlord’s policy timescales for an emergency. The landlord clearly recognised it was at fault for this in its email of 30 November 2021. It was concerning that the resident has since reported to this Service that the external front door remains a problem to date.
The landlord did have contract monitoring meetings in place with its contractors. It did refer to developing a further service level agreement at its meeting of 6 May 2021 with its repairs contractor. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this suggestion was implemented. However, given the performance issues it would be appropriate for the landlord to put this in place if it has not already done so. It also referred to applying financial penalties for its repairs contractor. This would be a reasonable approach to take and if it has not already done so, it should consider implementing this approach for its contractors in line with its contract provisions.
It was appropriate for the landlord to advise in its stage two response of 15 December 2021 that it was putting “quality checking measures in place” and that it would be reviewing its repairs policy, processes and ways of working to ensure that “these are fit for purpose. It was reasonable that it was considering the introduction of “post inspections on repairs over a certain value as well as in cases such as yours where customers have been let down and need reassurance that the work is done right first time”. It was surprising that a post inspection regime was not already in place.
The resident was also unhappy about the service charges associated with the repairs and maintenance service and the cost of electricity. In particular, the resident wished to see proof of the costs given. The resident was clearly frustrated with a lack of explanation of his service charges. Invoices that the landlord had then sent to the resident, he felt were insufficiently detailed to show exactly what work had been undertaken and charged for. The invoices did have works order references on them so it would be clear to the landlord the work undertaken, but this was not explained to the resident. The landlord should provide a narrative to explain the service charges to enable the resident to understand the charges. It was appropriate for the landlord to advise that the resident would not be charged for the error for the lock change. It did offer a small payment for the increased electricity due to the lighting issue. The actual costs may have been difficult to separate from the overall electricity costs for that specific issue.
In summary, the landlord failed to carry out repairs within a reasonable timescale and in line with its own policy. It failed to recognise the impact that the issues with the external security lights were having on the resident. It did not resolve the internal lighting issue within a reasonable timeframe. It did not provide an effective and timely response to the repair issues and it failed to effectively communicate with the resident or have proper oversight of its contractors. The delay in the repairs required to the external front door, resulted in the door being not as secure as it could be over the period heading into winter where security concerns would be heightened due to the dark evenings. These issues combined amount to maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning inadequate grounds maintenance and cleaning services being charged for through service charges.

In relation to the grounds maintenance services, the resident was understandably not happy about the quality assurance and delivery of these services. The landlord’s records indicate that there were some missed grounds maintenance services as referred to above. Its stage two complaint response of 12 November 2021 confirmed that the grounds maintenance service had been missed on three occasions in March 2020, August 2021 and October 2021. It offered to refund two of the three missed services in its later stage two complaint response of 15 December 2021. It referred to the lockdown in 2020 which led to one service not being provided at that point. However, it had still needed to pay the contractor for the service in line with the Government guidelines. The landlord did recognise that its communication was inadequate as it did not update the resident at the time. It was appropriate to recognise this service failing.
The resident disputed the quality of the cleaning services provided. The landlord’s records indicate that the cleaning service was carried out during the timescale six months prior to the resident’s complaint up to the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process on a fortnightly basis. It had carried out two quality inspections on 8 April 2021 and 9 August 2021. This was appropriate, though whilst its records did not state whether the cleaning quality itself was satisfactory, its contract meetings did indicate that it was satisfied with the level of service. The landlord should ensure that its record keeping is robust to reflect this. It could ensure that its quality inspections reflect the quality of the cleaning undertaken and that evidence is provided, for example, photographic evidence of the cleaning. There is insufficient evidence for this service to determine the quality of the cleaning service delivered charged for through service charges.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to hold regular contract partnering meetings with each contractor, there was less certainty in relation to the contractor’s performance in respect of grounds maintenance service. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord had developed key performance indicators to allow it to measure the services provided and to manage its contract. The landlord had discussed with its repairs contractor, the introduction of financial penalties, and it may wish consider this approach for its ground maintenance and other contractors as mentioned.
It was evident from the landlord’s records that it had a system of quality checking, however, some of the records were not clear from the “status” as to whether the quality check had in fact been carried out. The landlord could improve its record keeping practice. to ensure it can correctly advise residents on the standard and frequency of the services provided being paid for through service charges. Good record keeping is essential so that landlords can appropriately evidence and correctly advise residents in relation to the services provided. This Service has recently published a Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). This highlights the importance of good knowledge and information management. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
In summary, the landlord recognise its communication was not effective in relation to the missed grounds maintenance services. By the second stage two response of 15 December 2021, it agreed to refund two of the missed services for the grounds maintenance service which was reasonable, however, this could have been offered at an earlier point to assist in resolving the resident’s complaint. Its quality checking services did not record whether the quality of the grounds maintenance and cleaning service was satisfactory. The landlord could improve its record keeping to ensure that it can provide accurate records to residents. It should also consider financial penalties being introduced for grounds maintenance and cleaning services in line with any contractual obligations. These issues amount to a service failure for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord failed to log an official complaint as requested by the resident on 15 July 2021. It would be expected that the landlord log the complaint, acknowledge it and respond in accordance with its policy timeframes. However, this did not happen and it was only when the resident sent an official stage one complaint on 8 September 2021 that the landlord logged this complaint. This was a significant failing and poor practice and meant that the complaint did not get resolved at an earlier point. This Service encourages the early resolution to resolve complaints. An expression of dissatisfaction was made by the resident, along with a specific request to raise a formal complaint. Not only was the opportunity missed to resolve the complaint earlier, but also this was a significant failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord’s acknowledgement was made on 9 September 2021. This was 40 working days after the resident requested a formal complaint to be raised. Its stage one response was sent on 20 October 2021 which was 69 working days after the resident requested a formal complaint be raised. This was therefore considerably outside of the landlord’s complaint policy timescales. The resident escalated the complaint on 21 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged this on 25 October 2021, and its stage two response was sent on 12 November 2021, 16 working days later. This was delayed in respect of its policy timescales, however, the landlord did contact the resident on 8 November 2021 to advise that it needed to extend the deadline which was appropriate. It described this as a final response and gave information for this service at the time. It gave the opportunity for the resident to request the customer complaints panel review option. No evidence has been seen that a customer review panel was held in line with its policy at the time. However, the landlord then issued a further stage two final response was sent on 15 December 2021 which was 39 working days after the resident’s stage two escalation request. This process unnecessarily extended the complaints process before the resident referred his complaint to this service.
The landlord’s complaints policy is not compliant with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code. It has in effect three stages and a notably shorter timescale to respond to a complaint at stage two of ten working days. Given the delays experienced in issuing responses at stage two, the landlord should consider its resources and ensuring that its policy is fully complaint with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which is now a statutory requirement. The Code advises that a two stage complaint process is preferred. Whilst the landlord suggests that its customer complaints panel is recognised by this Service, the Code does not recognise this. The landlord has updated its policy in September 2022. The revised policy still contains the notably shorter response time at stage two of the process, however, the customer panel is described as “optional”. The landlord must ensure it carries out a self-assessment using the toolkit available on our website.
In summary, the landlord failed to log the resident’s request for a complaint to be raised of 15 July 2021. It did not log the complaint until the resident submitted a further formal complaint on 8 September 2021. This was a significant failing. The landlord did recognise communication issues in its complaint responses which was appropriate. There was delay in the landlord’s complaint handling. It offered compensation of £300 in recognition of the delays in repairs, time and trouble escalating the issue and chasing the service and for the missed grounds maintenance services. Whilst compensation was appropriate, this does not, in the opinion of this service adequately address the delays in repairs, the time and trouble and detriment to the resident in chasing these up over an extended period of time. The resident was offered a refund on two of the missing grounds maintenance services and £5 refund for increased electricity costs. The landlord’s complaints policy is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in terms of the timescale and third stage which unnecessarily lengthened the complaints process for the resident. These failings combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the building, including exterior and interior lighting, utility cupboards, and the front door being charged for through service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the resident’s reports concerning inadequate grounds maintenance and cleaning services being charged for through service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to act in a timely manner to rectify the issue in relation to supplying a lock to the main control cupboard door and rectifying the issues with the lock change being carried out to the water cupboard door rather than the electric cupboard door. It failed to address the issue of the internal and external lighting and to ensure it had oversight of its contractor so that the issue was resolved within a reasonable timescale. It failed to address the insecure front door in a timely manner taking account of the time of year approaching darker evenings causing unnecessary distress to the resident. It did not have sufficient oversight of its contractors to ensure that the work was organised appropriately and completed quickly to ensure that the door was secure. It failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy timescales. There were communication issues between the landlord and its contractors, and with the resident in ensuring he was adequately updated.
Communication issues meant that the resident was not kept up to date in respect of the missed grounds maintenance services being charged for through service charges. The evidence does not show that cleaning services were not provided, however, the landlord’s record keeping did not accurately record the outcome of its quality inspections, or whether they had all been carried out. It did, however, agree to refund the missed grounds maintenance services which was reasonable.
The landlord failed to log the complaint at stage one as requested by the resident on 15 July 2021. This led to delay and additional time and inconvenience for the resident who then had to submit a further written formal complaint on 8 September 2021 before the landlord chose to log the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses were delayed and as it had a third stage, this caused additional delay in resolving the resident’s complaint issues. The landlord’s policy is non-compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in respect of the timescales at stage two, and in respect of the third stage. The Code advises that landlords should consider a two-stage policy. There is no record that a customer complaint panel was held in line with its policy which was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint. Its compensation offer did not fully reflect the time and trouble, and distress and detriment experienced by the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident from a director level or above for the failings outlined in this report. A copy should be sent to this service.
2. Pay the resident £500 (including the £300 already offered) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas of the building, including exterior and interior lighting, utility cupboards, and the external front door being charged for through service charges.
3. Pay the resident £100 in respect of the resident’s reports concerning inadequate grounds maintenance and cleaning services being charged for through service charges.
4. Pay the resident £400 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out an inspection and to produce a schedule of works in relation to the outstanding issues concerning the external and internal lighting, the utility cupboard and the external front door. The landlord should then carry out any necessary works within eight weeks of the date of this report. It should confirm satisfactory completion of the works.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide a narrative, along with its service charge statements for 2021 to 2022, to explain to the resident the service charges payable by the resident. A copy should be sent to this Service.
Within ten weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out a director level review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and to produce an improvement plan that should be shared with this Service. This should set out as a minimum:
1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
2. Its intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 4 – Complaint Handling Principles and Section 5 – Complaint Stages with reference to complaint stages. It should use this to then review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Recommendation

Within ten weeks of the date of this report the landlord should advise this service of a timescale to review its approach to quality assurance for contracted services to ensure it evidences the adequate delivery of services in line with its contracts.