Great Places Housing Association (202233150)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233150

Great Places Housing Association

15 July 2024

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 Estate and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. This complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of external repairs.
   2. The associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat. The resident died on 20 June 2021.
3. Representatives of the Estate of the late resident brought the complaint to this Service.
4. In June 2022, the Estate and the landlord discussed major repairs including lift replacement, roofing works and window works. The landlord said the balance of the sinking fund was not enough to cover all the required works and cosmetic repairs would be last on its list.
5. Between July and October 2022, the Estate and landlord continued to correspond about the outstanding repairs. Following receipt of roof and window surveys, the landlord explained that surveyors were working on a scope of works. It said it would arrange a residents meeting to discuss this.
6. The Estate raised a formal complaint on 12 October 2022. It said:
   1. It had not received any correspondence from the landlord.
   2. Despite requests for repair, the exterior window frames had flaking paintwork and were in a poor state compared to the rest of the building.
   3. It was paying service charges yet did not believe it was receiving a repairs service from the landlord.
7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 24 October 2022. It said:
   1. It had gathered reports on the condition of the pitched roof, flat roof, windows, and lift. The reports identified extensive work and costs associated with their replacements.
   2. It would hold a residents meeting in the coming weeks to discuss the next steps.
   3. The windows within the block had come to the end of their life cycle. It was aiming to replace all the windows in 2023 as part of large scale works to the building.
   4. It would not undertake repairs in isolation as associated costs were required for the larger project.
   5. It was reliant on the conclusion of the surveys to give it a full picture of the works needed and how best to book these in.
   6. It recognised the Estate made a complaint on 15 August 2022 and did not receive a response. It apologised and offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
8. The Estate escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 27 October 2022. It said the landlord ignored the Estate’s request to complete the window painting itself. It explained it was unable to sell the property because of poor maintenance yet continued to be liable for service charges.
9. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 April 2023 following several chaser emails from the Estate. The landlord:
   1. Apologised for the delay responding to the complaint.
   2. Summarised the major works within the building and said they should start that calendar year.
   3. Recognised the Estate had since sold the flat.
   4. Explained it waived the £200 charge for producing the Management Information Pack during the sales process as a gesture of goodwill.
   5. Increased its offer of compensation for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused, from £50 to £150.

Assessment and findings

10. Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

11. This Service investigates complaints which have been considered by the landlord under its internal complaint procedure. We recognise that in February 2023 and April 2023, the Estate expressed further concerns about:
    1. The landlord letting the Resident’s Association control the service charges, causing parts of the building to fall into disrepair.
    2. The landlord disclosing the address of an executor to a buyer of the flat.
    3. The landlord providing an estimate of the financial contribution for the works to a prospective buyer, while the works were still under consultation.
12. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. Based on the information available, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the matters raised in February 2023 and April 2023 have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Therefore, this report is limited to the complaint the Estate made on 12 October 2022 and the landlord’s response to it.
13. The Ombudsman expects residents or their representatives to bring a complaint to a member landlord within a reasonable period, usually within 6 months of the matter arising. This is defined in paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme that was applicable at the time. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not consider matters from the date the late resident purchased the property in 2016. Instead, this determination focuses on the 6-month period prior to the complaint made by the Estate, up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response.
14. The Estate is dissatisfied with the service charges levied by the landlord. It requested a partial refund of service charges and its contribution to the sinking fund as a complaint resolution. Under Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). It is open for the Estate to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service about the options available to it.
15. The Estate believes the landlord is responsible for financial losses incurred when selling the leasehold flat. The Ombudsman does not make findings in the same way as a court or make binding decisions on matters such as negligence or liability. We do not make orders of compensation in the way a court may order a payment for damages. This determination will not consider any reported impact on the time taken to sell the property, the sale price, or the costs incurred when selling the property.

The landlord’s handling of external repairs

16. The lease sets out that subject to the payment of service charges, the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the roof, foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts thereof.
17. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that major works may be repaired at a later date, that year, or next, as part of a programmed repairs approach. If this is the case, the landlord will communicate this. The landlord will make timescales for expected completion clear at the time it arranges the works.
18. From the records provided to this Service, the Estate initially requested external works in June 2022 to remedy the appearance and poor maintenance of the exterior. At this time, the landlord managed the Estate’s expectations about forthcoming major works in the block and stated that it would consider what was most in need of replacement. It explained cosmetic work would be last on the list. It evidenced that it had instructed surveyors to assess the condition of the property, including the roof and fenestration. This was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
19. While the Ombudsman appreciates the Estate’s strength of feeling on the matter, considering the significant amount of major works required at the property, it was appropriate for the landlord to prioritise the most urgent works rather than those that were of a cosmetic nature.
20. The Estate was of the view that the condition of the windows in the flat was worse than the other properties in the development and required urgent attention. The landlord advised it would wait for the window survey before deciding the next steps. It said that if the surveyor flagged the windows as needing urgent repairs, this could be addressed by its repairs budget outside of the major works. This in itself was reasonable. A landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors when deciding whether to proceed with a repair.
21. Following the survey, the landlord updated the Estate and explained that the windows required replacement, which it would schedule as part of a programme of major works. The Ombudsman notes the survey was completed in July 2022, but the Estate was not informed of the landlord’s final position until October 2023. This was an avoidable delay.
22. The Ombudsman finds the landlord could have done more to update the Estate, manage its expectations, and provide reassurance that it was taking the matter seriously. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman is of the view that it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide consent to the Estate to paint the window frames itself. The communication failings exacerbated the situation and worsened the impact on the representatives of the Estate.
23. Within its final complaint response, the landlord recognised the delays responding to the Estate. It waived the £200 fee for the management pack provided during the sales process. This sum is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (available on our website) for when failings have been identified which did not cause a permanent impact. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress to the Estate for its handling of external repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

24. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint escalation, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
25. In this case, the landlord recognised that it failed to respond to the Estate’s complaint from August 2022. Following the complaint made in October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response within 12 days. The stage 2 response was issued 23 weeks later. The Code serves to illustrate that this complaint was kept open at stage 2 for an unreasonable duration.
26. Under the dispute resolution principles, it is good practice for a landlord to evidence learning from a complaint. At stage 1, the landlord said the customer service team had introduced a robust system on actioning emails to prevent future delays. However, it did not provide evidence or a clear explanation of the changes it had made to this Service. The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s statement to be vague and lack substance. At stage 2, the landlord failed to highlight any learning from this case. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to reflect on its shortcomings and learn from the Estate’s experience. This was inappropriate.
27. The Estate raised additional concerns to the landlord while waiting for the landlord to issue its stage 2 response. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set up a separate complaint to address said concerns and manage the Estate’s expectations accordingly. The landlord has not evidenced that it did so. As such, from the information available to this Service, the landlord has not addressed all the Estate’s concerns. A recommendation has been made in this regard. 
28. All member landlords must self-assess against our statutory Code. This includes consideration of how it creates a positive complaint handling culture through continuous learning and improvement, and how it demonstrates learning in annual reports. As this is being addressed on a wider level, a learning recommendation has not been made in this determination. Nonetheless, the landlord should take the Ombudsman’s observations into account and make improvements to its future complaints provision.
29. Within its final complaint response, the landlord apologised to the Estate. It offered to increase the compensation for the delayed response and subsequent inconvenience from £50 to £150. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for complaints where there was a failure that caused an adverse effect with no permanent impact. It is also proportionate to the failings identified. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress to the Estate for the shortcomings in its complaints handling.

Determination

30. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of external repairs.
31. Under paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its handling of the associated complaint.

Recommendations

32. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the Estate £150 compensation if it has not yet done so. The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis that this compensation is paid.
33. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contacts the Estate to clarify any outstanding concerns. If the Estate wants to proceed with a second complaint, the landlord should respond in accordance with its complaint procedure.