One Housing Group Limited (202126330)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126330

One Housing Group Limited

31 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 resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding of the car park.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to use the sinking fund to pay for remedial works to a car park pump and redecoration.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder who owns a shared ownership property in a building which is owned and managed by the landlord. The lease began on 10 February 2012. He occupies the property with his wife and two young children.

Legal and policy framework

Under the lease, the landlord “shall maintain, repair, redecorate, renew” the common parts and keep them adequately cleaned and lit. The common parts included the car park.
The resident had an obligation to pay a service charge contribution towards the costs that the landlord would incur in complying with its obligations under the lease including in relation to the common parts.
The resident had the right to use the car park but there was no indication he had a designated parking space.
Under the repairs policy, the landlord would manage repairs to the communal areas to the same timescale and standard as internal repairs. They would be “generally” identified during monthly inspection but otherwise would rely on reports by residents. Occasionally repairs to communal installations may be temporarily remedied and deferred to a planned programme for cost efficiency.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints process. The response time was 10 working days and 20 working days respectively. It could extend either stage by 10 days but would provide a reasonable explanation for doing so.

Chronology

Scope

During the complaint correspondence, while not specifically part of the complaint, the resident referred to the level of service charges. The Ombudsman does not make findings on the level of service charges or their reasonableness. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which governs this service’s jurisdiction, states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Should the resident wish to pursue the matter of the level of the service charge amount, he has the option of making an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) (FTT). The FTT has the power to make decisions that are binding on the parties.
The FTT can make determinations on the liability to pay a service charge. A tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and, if so, whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.

The complaint correspondence

The resident made several reports about the car park flooding on 20 December 2019, 9 September 2020, and lack of cleaning on 27 August 2020. He referred to having reported the lack of drainage “multiple times”. He asked if he could have a different car parking bay.
On 5 October 2020, the resident referred to previous assurances from the landlord to address the flooding and described how dirty standing water had cut off access to half the car park.
The resident made further reports on 8 May 2021, 23 May 2021, and on 24 May 2021 and 26 May 2021, he made a report about a water leak on the landing/water cupboard on the second floor of the block.
On 30 May 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord’s complaint team that he was withholding payment of the service charge increases since 1st April 2018. He cited that there has been “severe flooding” in the basement the previous month. While a job was raised, he had not heard further in response to his reports of the leak, despite chasing.
On 4 June 2021, the resident made a complaint that the cupboard leak he had reported had still not been repaired. The previous evening, an engineer turned off the water supply to his property. The resident had a small child and his wife was pregnant.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord logged the email of 4 June 2021 as a complaint.
On 28 June 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident addressing the resident’s complaint about the cupboard leak and offered £125.
On 27 July 2021, the resident made a further complaint about the standard of management as follows:
1. He had made “multiple” reports about the water leakages in the block, especially in regard to the underground car park. He referred to his previous emails. Despite assurances by the landlord, there were further floodings on 16 February 2020, 16 August 2020, 3rd October 2020, and 29 March 2021 to 1 April 2021, which he described as the worst flooding with 12 inches of water. The Fire Brigade had attended to pump the water out. On 12 and 28 April, works were carried out by a drainage repair contractor. There was further flooding on 28 June 2021 and 25 July 2021.
2. He asked that the car park drainage system was repaired “once and for all”, redecorated and renewed, and the costs met from the sinking fund. He also requested a refund of his management fees dating back to 2018.
The landlord replied on 24 August 2021 as follows:
1. It referred to a conversation with the resident on 11 August 2021.
2. It had not been able to reconcile the timeline of events for 2020 for which it apologised. It would investigate and update him.
3. It noted that “multiple car park flooding incidents” had been logged in April – June 2021. Their contractors had attended and pumped out the area. It sympathised and apologised for the impact the reoccurring issue had had.
4. It had “expressed concerns” that this had not been resolved permanently and assured her that the landlord was committed to resolving this issue.
5. It had instructed its contactor to carry out a “validation survey”, and to have the pumps serviced.
6. “They” (presumably the pumps) would be added to the regular maintenance contract.
7. The sinking fund was a fund held in trust. The amount raised on a monthly basis was based on an independent surveyor’s report assessing what would be needed to cover the costs of replacing depreciating assets as well as the cost of cyclical redecoration. The fund’s purpose was to generate sums of money to mitigate the possibility of large one-off charges being charged to residents when replacements and decorations were needed. It was not used for repairs as this could result in putting residents in difficult financial situations at later dates.
8. In this instance, it would consider applying it to the works which were required to fix the leaks. If it was within its power to use the sinking fund, it would do so. If the works did not meet the “requisite criteria”, it would include the repairs costs in the regular service charges. The Service Charge team would consider this at the time of reconciling the accounts.
9. The management fees covered the landlord’s overhead charges and could not be refunded.
10. Given the delays, inconvenience and frustrations caused and in recognition of him having to pursue this matter to obtain a resolution and for its delayed response, it upheld the complaint. It was upheld due to the multiple visits that had taken place without resolving the issue and for the poor level of service. It offered £150, consisting of £50 under its Right to Repair policy and an additional £100 “goodwill gesture” for the inconvenience caused.
11. In line with its policy, it would apply the amount to any rent or service charge arrears and pay the any balance to his bank account.
The resident replied on 14 September 2021 as follows:
1. The inability to reconcile the repairs was an example of the landlord’s “bad management”. The resident could cite other examples going back to 2018.
2. The total compensation of £150 was “wholly insufficient” to draw a close to this issue.
3. He wanted a refund of the management fees and repairing the car park. There was still flooding when it rained. He attached further photos that were undated but which showed water in the car park.
On 16 September 2021, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint.
On 13 October 2021, the landlord wrote with its second stage response as follows:
1. It agreed with the Stage 1 response regarding the sinking fund and management fees. It did not consider the costs of maintenance works or subsequent redecorations to be the best use of this fund. At the beginning of each year, it estimated the costs for day-to-day maintenance, mechanical and electrical equipment repairs and then calculated the actual costs against its estimates. Residents were then credited or debited for costs as appropriate such as, in this instance, repairs to the pump. This was a “much more efficient” way of managing cost relating to service charges and it enabled large investment works such as cyclical works, planned works and lift replacement etc. to be funded through use of the sinking fund. This meant residents would not be faced with large one-off costs which can be quite unaffordable and expensive. For example, a single lift replacement could cost around £60,000, which could amount to £5,000 per resident.
2. The management fees related to “overhead charges”.
3. The pumps responsible or clearing water out of the carpark in the event of flood were due to be serviced on 31 August 2021. On that day, its specialist contractor reported that the pump had been removed which explained the ongoing issues regarding the flooding of the carpark. It had since authorised the works to install a new pump and was currently in the process of ordering the parts for the works to commence. There would then be a regular servicing programme. This was a long-term solution to the issues of floods to the carpark.
4. Decorations to the block and communal areas were planned on a cyclical work programme which usually occurred every 5-7 years. Redecoration of the block took place in 2019 and was not due to for a “validation assessment” until 2024. Give the amount of time until then, it arranged for its specialist contractor to carry out, within a week, an environmental clean of the areas affected by the flood, pending their re-decoration.
5. It offered a further £100 to recognise the level of impact, bringing the total compensation to £250. The complaint was not upheld as it considered that the resident’s concerns had been addressed at Stage 1 of the complaints process. It considered the issues surrounding the flood to be a “medium level” impact, hence the increased compensation offer.
The resident responded on 19 October 2021 as follows:
1. Senior property management staff had acknowledged the disrepair in the block and had promised to address these issues, using the sinking fund.
2. The car park required “repair, redecoration and renewal”. Repairs had taken months if not years to fix, redecoration had been carried out to a bare minimum standard and nothing has been renewed since 2012.
3. The steps to repair the drainage system were months too late.
4. The damage and surrounding issues of the car park remained while funds were held “for an event that may or may not ever come”. He considered this to be extortionate and did not believe he was getting value for £2,500 per year.
5. He attached photographs showing “grubby” flooring, a scratched door, some refuse in the car park, and other images which were difficult to discern to which issues they related.
On 9 November 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident stating that a new pump was to be installed and a contractor was to carry out communal cleaning. The resident requested confirmation that the actions had been completed, including photographic evidence.
The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day to confirm the conversation. It stated that the pump has been changed “because if it were not, it would not be working”. It also confirmed that the cleaning was undertaken. It was not yet a requirement to have “before-and-after” pictures but might be something it would consider. In response to the resident’s request for evidence that the cleaning had been carried out, the resident would be “the best person to confirm” this. He could raise any concerns with his housing officer. It hoped that concluded the complaint.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord wrote that it would be carrying out a deep clean for the block, including the bin store and the car park, by 30 November 2021.
The resident wrote on 17 November 2021 that the areas required “to be repaired, redecorated and renewed”. The residents needed to be consulted on what that work constituted.
On 19 November 2021, the landlord wrote with a follow-on response to the Stage 2 complaint as follows:
1. It did not intend to utilise the sinking fund for the works. The fund was allocated for capital investment works, such as mechanical repairs/replacements and not typically used for cyclical repairs or decoration. Cyclical decoration works were undertaken every 7 years. Repairs and decorations took place in 2019.
2. The pump installation was “in progress”. The part was expected on or around 26 November and installation would begin week commencing 29 November 2021.
3. It had arranged a deep clean of the block and car park area, including the bin store on 30 November 2021. The deep clean would improve the aesthetics and general condition of these areas.
The resident provided photos which he had dated 16 February 2020, 16 August 2020, 3 October 2020, 29 March 2021 to 5 April 2021. 28 June 2021, 25 July 2021, 14 September 2021, 2 October 2021, 30 October 2021, 12 and 17 December 2021, 17 and 18 January 2022. They showed water ingress, or flooding, in the car park. November 2021 photographs showed litter.

The repairs

On 24 December 2019, the landlord raised a job to check all drains in the car park. The contractors reported that the works were completed on 3 January 2020 that it had “jetted blocked gully downstream to clear”.
21 February 2020: an emergency job was raised to unblock gutters and drain water.
24 February 2020: the landlord’s contractor attended and reported that it was unable to lift some manhole lids.
6 March 2020: the contractor attended and reported that a tanker was required.
16 August 2020: a job was raised as emergency. The nature of job was not specified.
6 October 2020: the contractor attended further to a report the day before but required arrangements to get access. The nature of the job was not specified.
30 March 2021: “leak from tank in cupboard in riser in basement car park. Fire brigade isolated water and pumped the water out of car park they also isolated the lift. repaired issue with tank and re-instated the water”.
29 March 2021: float disconnected and pin missing in the tank, causing was overflowing. Ball valve on break tanker faulty and was repaired.
1 April 2021: the contractor removed water from the lift and cleared blocked drains but pumps were not working. A pump engineer was required.
23 April 2021: following pump engineer’s visit, a contractor cleared the car park drain and pumped the pit out.
28 April 2021: the contractor removed all the water.
According to the contractor’s email of 25 August 2021, the only equipment it had recorded for the site was a pump booster which had been last serviced on 13 August 2021. It was functioning correctly. It had never attended to any sewage/stormwater sets.
The landlord replied on the same day, instructing an engineer to attend as there could have been sump pumps fitted in the carpark which it did not know about. If so, they should be serviced as soon as possible, and add them to the planned maintenance programme.
On 2 September 2021, the contractor wrote to the landlord that it had attended on 27 August 2021 to check out the stormwater set and found that while there was a pump pit, the pump was missing which would “probably explain” the issues. It enquired whether it had been removed for repair or because it was deemed no longer needed. The supply cable in the pit had been cut and there was no electrical supply. It asked for instructions and access so it could schedule a further attendance. It was nearly a year since it had carried out a service. It suggested carrying out a service and pit clean with a tanker rather than a standard service.
24 September 2021: the contractor raised an invoice in relation to a service, but there were no details.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord raised a purchase order for a sewage and sump pump “required for 4 March 2022”.
22 December 2021: there was an emergency attendance by a plumber who could not gain access. A further emergency job was raised to clear the water and investigate. The lift was out of service. The contractor pumped out the lift shaft, carried out repairs, checked for leaks in “water main rooms” through the building. The recommendation was to clear out drains in the underground car park and check the electrics for water damage.
18 January 2022: job raised to jet spray drains as they were blocked. Power supply to pump had been cut and no pump inside of pump pit.
19 January 2022: job raise to investigate reports of no/low pressure following water outage earlier.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord chased an update on the installation of the storm pump as it should have been completed at that stage.
28 June 2022: a storm water pump was installed.
On 7 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the contractor noting that the pump was due to have been fitted end of November 2021 and requesting an explanation why it had not been.
The contractor replied the next day. It apologised for the time it has taken to resolve the issues. Because no pump had been installed to begin with, it had had difficulty identifying the correct replacement pump. The replacement pump it had ordered did not fit. The lead times due to global supply issues had added to the time it had taken to resolve these issues.

Cleaning of the area:

The landlord provided this service with inspection reports for 6 December 2021, 25 April 2022, 22 July 2022. The reports were marked 6.4/10, B and A respectively which reflected the level of concerns noted and what the photographs showed. Another inspection report of 22 July 2022 of the car park was marked “C” with images of some bulk rubbish.
The landlord informed this service that it was unable to evidence the deep clean in late 2021 and cited the report of 6 December 2021.

Assessment and findings

While it is limited what the Ombudsman can determine from photographs, there was no dispute that the car park suffered a number of incidents of water ingress, or flooding. The frequency of incidents increased in 2021.
The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in 2020 by raising drainage works. It is noted some delay was caused by difficulties with access and a recommendation will be made in that regard. There was no evidence of monthly inspections. While that was not conclusive that the inspections did not take place, there was no evidence either way of the landlord itself raising concerns during monthly inspections. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to also expect residents to report any issues such as water ingress. It was in accordance with its policy and a matter of practicality.
While the landlord responded in terms of raising jobs to pump out the water, it was slow to investigate the matter whether there were underlying causes for the flooding. The evidence showed that the landlord had not considered whether there was a storm pump, was not even aware whether there was one, and was not aware that it was missing. This showed a lack of proactive investigation. While the cause of each flooding may not have been the same, the lack of investigation would have delayed identifying a solution. Moreover, installing a pump would not rectify any underlying cause.
The evidence indicated that matters progressed because of the resident’s complaints. That is not satisfactory. However, it was reasonable that the landlord raised an order for a pump to be installed. There was no explanation why there was a further, if not significant, delay to ordering the pump. It is noted that the order stated that the pump was required for March 2022. The reason for the date was not clear as the correspondence between the contractor and landlord indicated that the expectation was that the pump would be installed at the end of November 2021. While the contractor took responsibility for the delay from August 2021 to June 2022 and its explanation was not unreasonable, there was no evidence that the landlord monitored the works or updated the resident, apart from a chaser in March 2022. The impact of not monitoring the works also meant that the resident was left with the erroneous impression that a pump had been installed in November 2021.
The Ombudsman considers that in installing the pump, carrying out a clean and planning redecoration as part of its cyclical works, was in line with the landlord’s obligations under the lease. However, the Ombudsman does not give legal advice and if the resident considers that the landlord is in breach of the lease, then he can seek legal advice.
The compensation took account of events up to November 2021, however, given the further delay to June 2022, during which time the resident suffered further inconvenience, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have reviewed the matter.
Given the overall delay, the lack of proactivity, and lack of updates, the Ombudsman does not consider that the compensation, which was to include the delays in the complaint handling, was sufficient. Such compensation will also reflect that, while the events impacted on the resident’s daily life and the inconvenience to him and his family, particularly given that his wife was pregnant and he had young children, they did not affect the resident’s actual home.
The landlord’s explanation that the management fees were intended to cover the overheads was reasonable. If the resident wanted to challenge the reasonableness of those fees, it would be open to him to apply to the FFT. The Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s decision not to refund the management fees to be unreasonable. The management fees were to cover the overall management of the block and not just the car park. The resident referred to other examples of poor management but they were not specified. In any event, the Ombudsman’s approach would not be to order a refund, partly as that would require a forensic analysis of the fees and the landlord’s overall performance, but principally because the general approach to complaint handling is to consider an appropriate level of compensation, proportionate to the service failure.
It was reasonable of the landlord to offer to carry out a deep clean of the car park. However, it was not carried out within a week of the October review response as promised and there was no evidence that it was carried out at all. While some time has passed since the deep clean was to have been carried out, and the decoration works will not be carried out for a while, the Ombudsman will make an order that a deep clean is carried out, and at its expense, given its delays at resolving the repairs.
The landlord’s explanation why it would not carry out decoration works was reasonable. The landlord has an obligation to ensure that the works it carries out and the charges incurred are reasonable. It would not be a decision for the landlord alone, but for all the leaseholders/tenants paying service charges in the block. As the resident stated, the landlord would have had to carry out a consultation. It was entitled to consider whether that would be a reasonable and proportionate use of its management time and resources.
The Ombudsman has noted there were issues with the landlord’s records as it was unable to reconcile the repair records for 2020, or evidence the deep clean. This report has highlighted gaps in the information. There were no identifiable records that it had been carried out, for example (while post the complaints process) the 2022 jobs. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to use the sinking fund to pay for remedial works to the car park pump and redecoration.

The landlord’s explanation why it would not apply funds from the sinking funds to the decoration works were reasonable and is in line with the purpose of a sinking fund, as set out by the Lease Advisory Service, a Government funded, independent advice for residential leaseholders. It sets out that “the purpose of a sinking fund is to build up a sum of money to cover the cost of irregular and expensive work such as decorating the outside of properties, carrying out structural repairs or replacing the lift. There are usually two reasons for maintaining a reserve fund. The first is to make sure that all tenants contribute to the cost of major work, not just those who are living in the building at the time it is carried out. The second is to even out the yearly charges, avoiding large one-off bills, and to help leaseholders’ budget for these costs”. Buying a leasehold flat – 10 things you should check – The Leasehold Advisory Service (lease-advice.org)
The landlord provided a detailed and appropriate explanation of the reasons behind a sinking fund and practical reasons for its decision. The landlord should provide for contingencies for capital expenditure. The interest the funds earn is also held on trust for the leaseholders so is for the benefit of the existing leaseholders. Its approach is also standard practice across the sector.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

There was a minor delay to its response complaint from 27 July 2021 to 24 August 2021.
It was reasonable of the landlord to have reviewed the level of impact of the water ingress on the resident in its first review response and to provide a further review. However, there was no evidence that it proactively updated the resident regarding the 2020 repairs or its stance towards using the sinking fund until the complaint was escalated. It has also been noted that the Ombudsman would have expected the complaints process to have remained open until the works it had promised were completed. Its response and the tone of its email of 9 November 2021 was inappropriate and concerning. The evidence showed that the pump had not been replaced nor the clean carried out at that time. While there was no evidence this was deliberate, it demonstrated, in the view of the Ombudsman, a dismissive attitude.
Taking all those points together, while there were benefits to the complaints process, and there was recognition of the complaint response delay, the Ombudsman finds service failure in its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding of the car park.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to use the sinking fund to pay for remedial works to the car park pump and redecoration.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

While the landlord promptly raised jobs to carry out drainage jobs to the car park, there was a delay in investigating the water ingress and a delay in implementing those works, and there was no evidence that considered investigating the underlying cause of the flooding.
The landlord’s explanation why it did not apply the sinking funds to the repairs and decoration of the car park was reasonable and appropriate, and in line with practice of the sector.
While there were benefits to the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord did not monitor the resolution, and in one instance, while the Ombudsman does not consider it to have been deliberate, provided inaccurate information.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation within 4 weeks in the amount of £550, to include the offer of £250 the landlord has already offered, consisting as follows:
  1. An additional £150 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of flooding of the car park.
  2. An additional £150 in relation to its complaints handling.
  3. £250 already offered if not already paid.
2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must arrange a deep clean of the car park, such costs not to be added to the service charge account for the block.
3. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord should carry out a review of the water ingress into the car park. If there has been further multiple reports in the last 6 months, the landlord should investigate the causes of the water ingress and provide a report, together with a plan of action and timescale for any work, to the resident and the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders in 4 and 8 weeks respectively.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should take steps to ensure access is provided to its contractors to access the common parts to carry out works.
2. The landlord should carry out a review of the findings highlighted in this report so as to consider improvements to its service delivery, including:
  1. Carrying out monthly inspections of the car park.
  2. Ensuring repairs staff check the repairs history for a property when logging new reports and that staff are aware of the need to escalate a matter where there is a history of repeat or similar requests.
  3. Keeping under review its cases after the conclusion of its internal complaints procedure, in particular where the relevant issues have not been resolved.
  4. Ensuring that it keeps a clear track of its complaints process and its staff adhere to the timescales set out in its complaints procedures.
  5. Ensuring its record keeping is comprehensive and systematic.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.