Places for People Group Limited (201902700)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201902700

Places for People Group Limited

07 January 2021

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 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:
1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of communal repairs and her concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance; and
2. the landlord’s provision of information relating to the service charge; and
3. the landlord’s handling of the payment of compensation in respect of failures acknowledged during the complaints process.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
As part of the complaint the resident has raised concerns about the level of the service charge and apportionment of costs for items including salt replenishment, TV aerial maintenance and grounds maintenance.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge or the amount of rent or service charge increase. This is because these matters are best dealt with by an application to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT), which can provide a binding determination on the level of service charge payable. Further information about making an application to the FTT can be found on its website here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/residential-property-first-tier-tribunal-forms

The Ombudsman can, however, consider the aspects of the complaint relating to the landlord’s administration of the service charge and the information it provided to the resident in response to her enquiries.

Background and summary of events

The resident brings this complaint on behalf of herself and 14 other residents at the scheme, comprised of two blocks of purpose built, self-contained flats with separate entrances. There are 18 flats in total, including the resident’s property. The resident occupies the property under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord and pays a weekly service charge in accordance with its terms.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 March 2019. She queried the discrepancy between service charges to different properties within the block in respect of admin and fire charges, and asked why new charges had been added for grounds maintenance compliance and landscape improvement. She also noted that there was a charge for salt when the properties had not been provided with salt ‘for years’ and had cleared paths themselves in adverse weather.
The landlord responded on 3 April 2019, explaining that the service charge varied between properties within the scheme and was apportioned by sub-block. It noted that a charge for Grounds Maintenance Compliance was apportioned equally between sub-blocks and then sub-divided according to the number of properties within the sub-block, meaning that some properties paid more than others if the sub-block contained fewer properties. It explained that one property did not pay the charge relating to fire, as it does not form part of a sub-block, but did contribute to grounds maintenance and landscape improvements.
The response of 3 April 2019 also explained that the admin charge was calculated as a percentage of the service charge, which was why it varied. The landlord considered that the increase in the Grounds Maintenance Compliance charge was levied in accordance with the service contract for landscape improvements to maintain two trees. It confirmed that regular checks took place and works would be monitored throughout the year. The landlord noted that salt was provided in a yellow bin, which was checked regularly to ensure it was stocked.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord on 15 June 2019 regarding communal repairs and service charges. She stated that a number of reported repairs and maintenance issues had not been completed, including redecoration of communal areas, clearing of the gutters and repairs to the roofline of the building. She stated that these issues had been reported to the landlord by email on 13 July 2018. She also repeated her concerns about discrepancies between the service charges to individual properties, describing the layout of the block, which was not reflected by the sub-block arrangement described by the landlord. She noted that in 2014 the landlord had failed to provide a summary of the service charge costs, which she stated it must do in accordance with sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord sent an acknowledgment letter to the resident on 24 July 2019, confirming that ‘the charges will be apportioned correctly’ and that this would be confirmed no later than 9 August 2019, together with an update on the outstanding repairs. The landlord committed to provide an outcome on the service charge issue by 26 August 2019.
The resident confirmed on 13 August 2019 that the landlord had raised jobs orders with its contractor for a damaged latch on the communal gate, holes in the roofline of the building, redecoration of communal doors, repointing, restoration of the pathway, gutter clearance, issues with the communal lighting and a broken car park security light.
The landlord’s ‘Head of Place’ responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 5 September 2019. It confirmed that in respect of the service charge for testing of fire safety equipment ‘in the short term we will be reducing the charge for those that were asked to pay more than their neighbours, backdating this to the start of the financial year’. The landlord would then consider a longer term plan to reduce the charges for this service and provide an update by 25 October 2019. The landlord would visit the scheme on 12 September 2019 to put together a schedule of works for any outstanding repairs issues identified. The landlord explained that as the residents paid a fixed service charge, sections 21 and 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 did not apply. The landlord asked the resident to confirm if she was happy for the complaint to be closed, offering £50 compensation in respect of the delay in responding.
The landlord subsequently wrote to the resident to confirm that a new gate would be ordered, works to the roofline and redecoration of communal doors would be added to the major works programme and that re-pointing and replacement of the car park security light would be followed up internally. The landlord would attempt to obtain funding for the pathway works and would arrange for the gutters of the whole scheme to be cleared. It confirmed that the communal lighting must remain on for safety reasons. The landlord stated that all jobs previously raised with its contractor had been cancelled.
The resident sent a further query relating to the service charges for admin, fire and grounds maintenance compliance on 16 September 2019. On 22 September 2019 the landlord confirmed that ‘the service charges will be the same for everyone, the admin charges, fire charges and grounds maintenance compliance will be paid by everyone’.
On 4 November 2019 the resident reported that the side gate, initially reported broken on 5 August 2019, had blown off, and that the security light first reported broken on 11 July 2019 had not been fixed.
On 4 November 2019 the landlord emailed the resident with an update on the communal works. Works to renew the side gate, re-pointing, repairs to the roofline, redecoration and installation of a parking bollard would commence on 5 November 2019. Works to replace the broken security light and to alter the communal lighting timer to a new sensor system were planned for 14 November 2019 and the guttering would be cleaned on 19 November 2019. The landlord also advised that photographs showing damage to the gardens had been passed to its landscaping team and that works to renew the pathways would begin by the end of January 2020.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 November 2019, requesting confirmation of the timings of the communal lights following works to adjust the timers. On receipt, the landlord noted some minor adjustments that needed to be made and works were arranged for 14 and 15 December 2019. The landlord emailed the resident on 16 December 2019, stating that further upgrades would be carried out to the controls. This work was originally scheduled for Spring 2020 but was put on hold due to the coronavirus pandemic.
In or around January 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that works to the roofline remained outstanding as the landlord had not yet received a quote. The landlord confirmed the service charge for salt was 4p per week, supplies were checked monthly and re-ordered as required. Charges relating to the on-site communal aerial were 20p per week. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received a response to an email of 19 December 2019 regarding landscaping and assured her this would be followed up. The landlord asked if the resident would be willing to accept the £50 compensation offered and for her complaint to be closed.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails between 3 and 19 February 2020. The resident queried why residents continued to be charged for salt when it had not been used in previous years, stating that the charge was excessive and unnecessary. The resident objected to paying a maintenance charge for a communal aerial, noting that several resident’s had satellite dishes installed and that in previous years the aerial had been re-sited but not replaced or maintained. The resident noted that the issues regarding the landscaping charges had been ongoing since 2014 and that gardeners had only attended for 6.5 hours in the previous year. She asked that the complaint be kept open, highlighting that she had not received the £50 compensation offered, and informed the landlord that she had involved this Service.
The landlord confirmed that the charge for salt would be reviewed and removed for 2020-21 and that the landscaping contractor had been monitored and the landlord was confident that it was visiting and carrying out work on a regular basis. It explained that the charges for this service were based on a formal tender that was accepted by the landlord as a service level agreement for the maintenance of the communal areas. It assured the resident that the landlord did not profit from this arrangement. It also explained that the TV aerial was maintained regularly, resulting in an ongoing charge. The landlord committed to review all service charges for 2021-22.
The resident subsequently received a service charge breakdown from the landlord, which still listed a charge for salt. She also noted that the cost for a tree survey had increased, and queried why this was the case when the only trees on site were maintained by the Council and cut the previous year.
On 27 February 2020, following contact from this Service. the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a review of her complaint, stating that it would provide a response by 26 March 2020. During discussions with the landlord about the stage 2 complaint, the resident had indicated that she wanted to meet management representatives on a regular basis, for the landlord to ensure the use of qualified sub-contractors, to have the service charge reviewed and adjusted and for the landlord to provide timely responses to customer communications.
There were ongoing discussions with the resident regarding the outstanding repairs prior to completion of the stage 2 complaint review. On 1 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm the scheduled dates for various works. It confirmed that decoration of the communal hallway and door was due to commence on 15 June 2020, temporary repairs to the roofline were due to take place on or around that date, and further works to the communal lighting controls had been rescheduled for 22 June 2020. The landlord confirmed that works to the pathway would be completed as soon as reasonably practicable.
The stage 2 complaint response was provided on 10 July 2020. The landlord made the following comments in relation to each aspect of the complaint:
1. The landlord acknowledged that some repairs had not been completed, or had been delayed due to ‘current restrictions enforced by the lockdown measures’. It confirmed that a schedule of works had been drawn up for the outstanding repairs. It also noted that it had completed pre-commencement work for the works to the path and would proceed with the substantive work as soon as it was safe to do so.
2. The landlord apologised that the charge for salt had not been removed from the summary sent to resident in February 2020. It confirmed that her account had been credited and would be amended accordingly.
3. The TV aerial had been upgraded in 2012 and contractors had attended a callout in May 2019. The landlord listed the associated charges and explained that the maintenance charges in subsequent years had only just covered the cost of the upgrade carried out in 2012. The landlord committed to review the charge to consider a cost reduction in the next financial year.
4. The landlord had reviewed the plans and identified trees within the boundary of its land that it was responsible for maintaining. The landlord explained that maintenance was required to some trees in close proximity to the building that were currently obscuring the street lamp. It confirmed that the charge for tree surveying was appropriate ‘to maintain the trees within the scheme’ and that ‘additional work orders have now been raised to continue with the required maintenance’.
5. The resident’s dissatisfaction with the performance of its landscaping contractor had been raised directly with the Regional Operations Manager. The landlord would be conducting further ‘quality audits and customer satisfaction surveys’ to address her concerns. The landlord noted the photographic evidence supplied, stating that it had raised concerns about the time on site and quality of service.
The landlord confirmed that its contractors were approved to the required standard and that performance concerns would be monitored. It also noted that the service charge had been reviewed and amended as appropriate. The landlord explained it had not paid the £50 compensation offered at stage 1 as the complaint had been escalated and compensation would not be paid until the complaint was concluded. It increased its offer of compensation to £100, in recognition of its sub-standard communication and failure to adhere to timescales throughout the course of the complaint.
Following the complaint response the resident wrote to the landlord on 21 July 2020, noting that the landlord seemed to be prioritising smaller repairs over issues that had been reported for many years and had not been addressed. She also noted that residents were not being informed of the landlord’s visits to the scheme. The landlord stated in response that it could not undertake a further review but committed to provide further comment on outstanding repairs to a washing line and fencing. It also confirmed that from September 2020 the Place Manager would give a week’s notice prior to attending site and call at the resident’s property.
On 7 September 2020 the resident confirmed to this Service that the outstanding repairs included redecoration of the communal hallway and doors, and repairs to the pathways and roofline. She also stated that the service charge issues had never been satisfactorily resolved. She complained about the landlord’s lack of communication and noted that she had not received the compensation offered as she had refused to sign a form stating that she was satisfied with the outcome of the complaint.
The landlord’s Regional Maintenance Manager attended the property on 6 October 2020 and followed up with an email on 14 October 2020, setting out the issues highlighted at his visit. The landlord provided a schedule of general works, to be completed by its internal Property Maintenance Department. These included works to address a leak, tiling, cleaning of the gutters, redecoration, repointing, the installation of letterboxes, key-safes and digi-locks, renewal of fencing and jet-washing. The landlord confirmed that major works to the roofline were being progressed by sourcing quotations. The landlord provided assurances that it was taking steps to follow-up on the resident’s concerns regarding the performance of its contractors and to improve the service provided. It committed to a post-inspection of the general repairs listed by its area trade supervisor, at which time the maintenance sub-contractor’s recent work would be audited. The resident had indicated areas of grass and plants damaged by the landscaping sub-contractor and raised concerns that tree maintenance was not being completed. This had been raised with the appropriate team.
As at 11 November 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the following works had been completed:
1. Clean of all gutters on scheme;
2. Redecoration of garden gate;
3. Re-pointing;
4. Installation of letterboxes, key-safes and digi-locks;
5. Redecoration of communal door and cupboard;
6. Renewal and re-fixing of fencing;
7. Jet-washing.
The following works remained outstanding:
1. Investigation of the cause of a roof leak and associated remedial works;
2. Renewal of floor tiles in hallways and stairs;
3. Other areas of external re-pointing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord has a statutory duty to maintain the structure and exterior of the building, which is reflected in the terms of the resident’s Tenancy Agreement. The landlord is also obliged to take ‘reasonable care’ to keep the common parts of the property in reasonable repair and fit for use, under clause 2(5) of the Tenancy Agreement. Clause 2(7) states that the landlord will provide such services as it deems necessary and a service charge is payable under the terms of the lease, which may be increased or decreased by giving the tenant not less than one calendar months’ notice in writing.

Communal Repairs and Grounds Maintenance

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states that its target timescale for non-emergency repairs is 28 days, although it notes that inspections may be required before works can be completed and works may be delayed due to availability of contractors and materials. In the event of a delay, the landlord’s policy states that the resident will be advised of the delay and the likely date of completion. The policy distinguishes planned maintenance from other repairs, stating that where appropriate non-emergency repairs will be grouped into programmes or batches of work ‘to maximise efficiencies’. The policy does not set out target timescales for planned maintenance.
The Ombudsman accepts that timescales for some works will vary according to the scale and nature of the works, although the landlord would be expected to complete major repairs and planned maintenance within a reasonable timeframe and to keep residents updated. The Responsive Repairs policy does not distinguish between repairs within an individual property and communal repairs.
The resident stated in the complaint letter that she first reported a number of communal repairs to the landlord on 13 July 2018. A copy of the email referred to has not been provided to this investigation and there is nothing in the landlord’s repairs record to evidence repairs recorded at that time. The complaint expressly referred to the need for repairs to the roofline (eaves and soffits), redecoration of the communal areas and clearance of the guttering. The landlord’s repairs records show that a job was raised for re-pointing of some areas on 17 April 2019. All other repairs were either reported by the resident or identified during the landlord’s site visit in response to the complaint.
Following the formal complaint, between 24 July 2019 and 13 August 2019, the landlord raised job orders with its contractor to address the repairs identified, however, these works were rearranged following the stage 1 response. Some works were added to the planned works programme, some were postponed due to the need to obtain funding approval and others the landlord informed the resident were being arranged internally. According to the evidence submitted to this investigation, a further update was not provided until 4 November 2019, after the resident had reported further damage to the gate.
Adjustments to the communal lighting, a repair to the security light and renewal of the gate did take place in November 2019, although this was almost 4 months after the issues were first identified. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the delay and it failed to keep the resident updated at the time, resulting in her contacting the landlord to chase the repairs in November 2019. The other works did not commence in November 2019 as indicated and at the date of the landlord’s final response redecoration works and the works to repair the roofline remained outstanding.
The landlord has noted that its ability to deliver some works was impacted by the pandemic. However, it has not explained why works did not commence as planned in November 2019. In addition, the repairs records provided to this Service do not provide a comprehensive record of the repairs reported by the resident and referred to in the landlord’s correspondence, raising concerns about the landlord’s record keeping.
It may have been reasonable to delay works beyond the 28 day target timescale for routine repairs, and the Ombudsman appreciates that planned maintenance is often carried out on a cyclical basis, meaning it can be some months before works are addressed, however the landlord must ensure that residents are kept updated and provided with an estimated date for completion, as required by its repairs policy. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the communal repairs.
Repairs to the roofline of the building have still not been completed, although the landlord has informed the resident that it is in the process of obtaining quotes. The landlord initially indicated that temporary repairs would be carried out to mitigate potential health and safety risks, however, there is no indication that such works have been completed. The Ombudsman therefore orders the landlord to inspect the roofline to determine whether temporary repairs are required and to carry out any necessary temporary repairs within 6 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should also provide an update to the resident, copied to this Service, stating the anticipated timeline for commencement of the main works.
Following the initial complaint the resident raised additional concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance, which were addressed in the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence provided that on 6 December 2019 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had requested details of the landscaping contractor’s visits. The evidence also shows that the resident was visited by the landscaping contractor on 18 December 2019. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by raising the issues with its contractor, who committed to address this with the grass cutting sub-contractor. As stated above, the Ombudsman cannot comment on the reasonableness of service charge in respect of grounds maintenance, as this would be a matter for the FTT. The Ombudsman is satisfied, however, that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the issue with its contractor when it was first raised.
The landlord has also reported that it inspected the grounds and followed up with its contractor in February 2020 and again during the stage 2 complaints process, noting the photographic evidence provided by the resident. Regrettably, the resident has continued to report dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance service as recently as 20 September 2020. It is therefore recommended that the landlord carry out a further inspection, follow-up with the landscaping contractor about the ongoing concerns and write to the resident to confirm its response and how it intends to monitor performance going forward.

Request for service charge information

When the resident first raised the issue of the apportionment of service charges for fire and admin costs, the landlord’s records evidence that it carried out an internal review of the charges. It determined that all flats should be charged equally, as the way the block was described on the landlord’s systems was creating an unfair disparity in the charges between properties. The landlord has provided a copy of a service charge amendment form, recording the backdated changes and amounts to be reimbursed to the affected flats. The new arrangement was confirmed to the resident in the stage 1 response and subsequent email of 22 September 2019.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this aspect of the complaint for the residents by completing an internal review, and its decision to amend the charges demonstrated a willingness to learn from the complaint and a desire to put things right for the affected residents.
The resident also raised concerns about a charge for the provision of salt. The landlord initially maintained that this was justified but following further discussions with the resident in February 2020 it carried out additional investigations. The landlord then agreed to remove the charge as the salt was being used infrequently and there was currently a good supply. The landlord again demonstrated during the complaints process that it was willing to listen to residents’ concerns and to take action to ensure a fair outcome, although it may have missed an opportunity to resolve this matter earlier, prior to the formal complaint.
The resident has also queried a charge relating to the communal TV aerial. The landlord explained in February 2020 that this was due to routine maintenance. However, upon further investigation prior to the stage 2 response, it was determined that no routine maintenance was carried out but the aerial had been replaced in 2012 and the charge administered had only now covered the cost. The landlord has committed to review the level of the charge going forward, although it has noted that an ongoing charge would be reasonable so that funds are available if maintenance is required. The Ombudsman urges the landlord to take care to fully investigate enquiries prior to responding and to ensure its responses are complete and accurate, to avoid inadvertently misleading its customers.
During the stage 2 review the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord made enquiries about the locations of the trees on the estate and reasonably concluded that they were with its boundaries and therefore its responsibility to maintain. It has explained that a charge has been added for tree surveys in relation to pruning works to be carried out to 2 trees. The Ombudsman considers that this is a reasonable explanation for why it has administered this charge.
Whilst the Ombudsman recognises that the resident remains dissatisfied with the reasonableness of some of the charges levied, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has responded adequately to the resident’s requests for information about individual charges and has provided reasonable explanations. Should the resident wish to dispute the level of the charges, she should contact the FTT.

Complaints handling and payment of compensation

The landlord has offered the resident £100 in recognition of its poor communication and for providing complaint responses outside its target timescales. The Ombudsman notes that in addition to the failings identified, the landlord has failed to provide a reason for the delays at both stages of the complaints process, although it is acknowledged that the coronavirus pandemic may have impacted response times at stage 2. There is no evidence, however, that the resident was kept updated on the progress of her complaint at each stage. Whilst it was apparent that the landlord was in contact with the resident about the issues raised, including the progress of repairs, this should not have unreasonably delayed the provision of a formal response to the complaint. The Ombudsman therefore considers that there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its communication and complaints handling.
The resident has complained that the landlord refused to pay the compensation offered unless she agreed that her complaint was resolved. The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that where an offer of compensation is made, customers will be advised that acceptance of the offer of compensation will be considered acceptance of resolution of the issues. If compensation is accepted at stage 1, the landlord will not escalate the complaint unless new information is provided. The landlord therefore acted in accordance with the terms of its policies and procedures by withholding the compensation offered when the resident indicated that she did not consider the complaint resolved. The landlord should, however, have escalated the complaint at this time.
Having considered all the evidence and in light of the above, the Ombudsman considers that compensation of £150 is reasonable and appropriate in all the circumstances of the case, in recognition of the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue the complaint and the inconvenience caused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman determines that there was:
1. service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of communal repairs;
2. no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the provision of information relating to the service charge; and
3. service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the communal repairs due to the failure to provide an adequate explanation for the delay in commencing works to redecorate the communal areas and to repair the roofline of the property, and to keep the resident updated.
There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the provision of information relating to the service charge as all enquiries made in relation to individual charges were appropriately investigated and responded to in a timely manner.
The landlord has acknowledged failings in its communication and complaints handling, however, the Ombudsman considers that an award of £150 is appropriate to reflect the considerable and unexplained delays in providing a response at both stages of the landlord’s complaints process and the failure to keep the resident updated on the progress of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following orders that within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation in recognition of the failings identified in its communication and complaints handling, inclusive of the £100 already offered at stage 2 of its complaints process.
2. Pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of the delays in completing the communal repairs and the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue the matter.
3. Carry out an inspection of the roofline of the building to determine whether any temporary repairs are required and if so, complete any necessary repairs within 6 weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should also write to the resident providing an update on the main works and the anticipated date of commencement.
The Ombudsman also makes the following recommendation that:
1. The landlord inspect the grounds maintenance at the property, refer the resident’s ongoing concerns to its contractor for comment and write to the resident confirming the outcome and how it plans to monitor the situation