Abri Group Limited (202312131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312131

Abri Group Limited

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to outstanding repairs to the property.
2. Response to communal repair and service provision issues.
3. Communication with the resident.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an Affordable Rent, Fixed Term Assured Shorthold tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom flat situated on the 12th floor (top floor) of a block. The block is serviced by two lifts.
The resident informed the landlord that he suffers from multiple health issues. These include Dyslexia, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, Manic Depression, Bipolar Disorder, Schizophrenia and Meniere’s disease.
The landlord’s neighbourhood procedure states that its Housing Partners will undertake an estate inspection once a month and it invites residents to join these inspections every 3 months.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states as follows:
1. Lift servicing is classed as cyclical work.
2. It will attend emergency repairs jobs within 24 hours. Non-emergency repairs are carried out on an appointment-based system (timescales are not provided).
3. The resident is responsible for keeping drains free from blockages.
The landlord’s customer relations procedure sets out its complaints procedure. At stage 1 it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If additional time is required it will keep the resident informed.
There are circumstances where the landlord can use discretion to deal with a complaint in a different way to the normal process. This includes when a resident has requested a member of the Executive Team correspond with them rather than following the complaints procedure and where a resident is demonstrating unacceptable behaviour when pursuing their complaint.

Summary of events

In April 2021 the resident contacted this Service in respect of damp and mould at the property (Housing Ombudsman reference 202101653). The landlord advised this Service that the complaint was still at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. This Service advised the resident that he would need to complete the landlord’s internal complaint procedure before referring his case to this Service. The resident did not subsequently refer this matter to this Service.
Between January 2022 and August 2022 the landlord did the following:
1. Arranged for a surveyor who found there was no evidence of damp, mould or leaks. It recommended that the kitchen and bathroom fans be replaced. This was carried out.
2. Checked the lift and had identified no cause for concern. It confirmed that the lifts were inspected twice-monthly (the legal requirement being annually).
3. Removed pigeon excrement and installed equipment on the roof to prevent pigeons from gathering.
4. Agreed to bring forward the resident’s kitchen refurbishment from 2025 to 2022.
5. Arranged an Environmental Health assessment which found no evidence of either any mites or infestation.
6. Cleared a blockage to the communal stack pipe and descaled the pipe. In addition it cleaned the residents drain.
7. Responded to the resident’s complaint about a leak from the washing machine.
Following the kitchen refurbishment, an annual Gas Safety Check was carried out at the resident’s property on 10 November 2022. Following this, the resident advised the landlord that the operative had been unable to access the emergency control valve. The landlord’s gas operative attended on 2 December 2022 and advised the resident that the location of both the gas meter and the valve was appropriate. The landlord offered to remove a shelf to allow the resident easier access to the valve but he declined this.
Around the beginning of January 2023 the landlord introduced a new process of desktop surveys to understand resident’s vulnerabilities and additional support requirement should both lifts be out of use. This included offering a concierge service should they be out of service for an extended period of time.
On 3 January 2023 the resident contacted the out of hours team in respect of a problem with the front door lock. There was no record available on its internal correspondence as to this being actioned. The landlord however advised this Service that an operative attended within 24 hours and changed the lock.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 January 2023 to say the that the communal door lock had been made safe but did not fully work. The landlord arranged an appointment for 24 January 2023. This went ahead, however more time was needed to repair the latch and so the landlord arranged a follow on appointment for 6 February 2023. On 6 February 2023 the contractor attended but did not have the correct part to fix the door.
That same day (6 February 2023) the resident submitted a complaint in respect of the danger he felt was being caused by the position of the gas safety valve and not being able to access it. He also asked to be compensated for the time he had made himself available for contractors to repair the lock on the communal front door.
The repair to the communal door lock was completed on 14 February 2023.
On 22 February 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he was fearful of using the gas despite having been told it was safe. The resident reiterated his concerns on 7 March 2023.
On 10 March 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 in respect of the complaint about the gas valve and front door. It stated as follows:
1. The complaint was upheld.
2. Its contractor had visited the property on 2 December 2022 and confirmed the placement of the gas safety lever was not illegal or against regulations.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had asked for an update on this a number of times but was not provided an update until 7 March 2023.
4. It acknowledged that improvements could be made in the frequency of communication from operatives (in respect of the gas valve query) and it had fed this back.
5. It offered a goodwill gesture of £100, made up as follows:
  1. £50 for the lack of communication following the visit of the gas engineer in December 2022.
  2. £50 for the delay in the complaint response.
On 14 March 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had previously enquired with a gas engineer if the pipe work to the resident’s property could be altered. The supplier had advised that it had plans to re-pipe the gas mains to the whole block. It had since requested an update and the supplier had advised that it would not be going ahead with the plans in the imminent future. The landlord had therefore asked it to expedite the request in respect of the pipework to the resident’s property.
On 15 March 2023 the resident escalated his complaint in respect of the gas valve and front door. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 19 April 2023 and stated as follows:
1. The complaint was upheld.
2. The stage 1 response in respect of the gas valve could have been more detailed and could have managed the resident’s expectations in regard to the next steps. It had not addressed the concern regarding the door lock repair.
3. It had recruited a new Quality Control Officer to ensure complaints were investigated in line with policies and procedures and that responses were quality checked to make sure mistakes were avoided in the future.
4. It could not compensate the resident for the danger he felt he was in from the gas valve as a gas engineer had confirmed it was safe and did not breach any regulations. It had instructed the gas supplier to assess the options to move the valve. In the meantime, it offered to remove the cupboard shelf to allow easier access.
5. In respect of the door lock, the contractor should have been prepared with the part needed. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused.
6. It offered £200 compensation (which was subsequently accepted by the resident) made up as follows:
  1. £100 originally offered at stage 1.
  2. £50 for the appointment on the 6 February 2023 which did not go ahead due to not having the parts.
  3. £50 for the time and trouble pursuing the matters.
On 20 April 2023 the resident submitted a complaint in respect of an odour coming from the sink, the communal lift being out of order, communal areas not being cleaned and the landlord not having called him back when he had requested. He submitted another complaint on 28 April 2023 about an odour coming from the stack pipes.
On 4 May 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident to discuss the odour and to arrange a visit to the property. The resident advised that the smell had stopped and he did not require a visit. The landlord advised him to contact it again if the smell returned.
On 9 May 2023 the communal lifts were serviced. It was identified that the motor room had become covered in pigeon faeces. Pest control cleaned the motor room on 11 May 2023. The lift maintenance company attended the following day and reinstated the lift.
On 17 May 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 (in respect of the odour, lift, communal cleaning, and the landlord’s communication). It stated as follows:
1. The complaint was not upheld.
2. It had spoken to the resident in respect of the odour and he had advised that the smell had subsided and that no intervention was required. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by a smell and asked the resident to contact it if the odour reoccurred.
3. The communal lifts were in proper working condition and underwent weekly servicing. The most recent being from 9 May 2023. An issue had been identified but this was actioned and the lift had been functional by 12 May 2023. It carried out safety checks of the lifts every 6 months.
4. The communal areas were cleaned and maintained on a fortnightly basis. Its Housing Partner inspected the block every fortnight to ensure standards were being upheld. Commencing that week, cleaning operatives would be asked to take before and after photos of the communal cleaning works.
5. It apologised for any inconvenience or dissatisfaction the resident had experienced. It asked him to let it know if he had any specific details about the areas or instances where he had noticed inadequate cleaning.
6. It apologised for any misunderstanding about its response to his call-back request from 7 March 2023. It advised that it had met its service level agreement of 5 working days and had returned his call on 10 March 2023.
On 24 May 2023 the resident escalated this complaint to stage 2.
On 31 May 2023 the resident raised a complaint about repairs needed to the communal entrance door. In addition he again stated there was an odour coming from the communal stack pipes. The landlord attended the resident’s property that day and no smell could be identified. The resident agreed with this. During the visit, the resident reported concerns around his toilet and acknowledged that he sometimes disposed of cat litter down the toilet. Due to the lack of cleaning of the toilet and the disposal of cat litter, the landlord arranged for it to be descaled and “rodded”, to remove any blockages.
A contractor attended to carry out works to the toilet on 6 June 2023. It advised the landlord that the toilet be replaced.
On 20 June 2023 a gas safety inspection was carried out at the property which concluded as follows:
1. The meter was located within a low-level kitchen cupboard. The emergency control valve was accessible and the construction of the kitchen unit did not appear to contravene regulations. The valve may not be considered to be accessible to someone with a disability but it was installed to current standards.
2. Relocating the valve would involve moving it further from the nearest practicable point of entry, which would be contrary to current regulatory and standards requirements. It would also increase risk due to creating additional unnecessary potential leak sources. It was therefore not recommended.
3. The kitchen unit could be replaced with a more appropriate corner unit which may facilitate better access to the valve.
The toilet replacement was carried out by the landlord as a goodwill gesture on 26 June 2023.
On 28 June 2023 a contractor replaced the faulty locking mechanism on the communal door. That same day the landlord recorded internally that during a phone call the resident had threatened to visit senior officers and Board members at their homes. The following day the resident sent an abusive tweet to the landlord asking for a “deadlock letter”.
On 3 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 in respect of ASB, odour, staff not logging requests, door repair, lifts, communal cleaning, gas valve, service charge, the behaviour of a member of its staff and communication. It stated as follows:
1. The only ASB case it had logged from the resident was in respect of a dog barking. The resident had confirmed that he was aware the occupier and dog had moved out. It stated it was working with the local police to improve the local living environment and was holding a drop-in session on 6 July 2023 which the resident had indicated he would be attending.
2. It had completed works to the stack pipe and provided a new toilet. It asked the resident to let it know if there were any further issues with odour.
3. It apologised that issues raised by the resident at stage 2 on 31 May 2023 had not been included as part of its Stage 1 investigation. It could not determine if it had been informed of all of the issues of complaint but it did not doubt the resident’s assertion. It upheld this aspect of complaint.
4. The repair to the communal door was raised on 20 April 2023 and completed on 28 June 2023. This was within the 90-day timeframe required for non-emergency works. It had passed on the resident’s concern that this had broken again.
5. One lift was out of order however there was no evidence that the response of the contractors had been outside the service level agreement. It advised that the lift should be repaired shortly. Due to the amount of use, it had increased the maintenance frequency to fortnightly. This was in addition to independent maintenance visits every 6 months. The industry-wide standard maintenance period for elevators was yearly.
6. It was satisfied that the stage 1 response appropriately addressed the concerns about communal cleaning and maintenance.
7. It had responded in respect of the gas valve at stage 2 in April 2023. It had considered the independent report and had agreed that adjustments would be made to the resident’s kitchen cupboards in line with the recommendations in the report.
8. It advised that the resident did not pay a service charge, only rent.
9. It had listened to the call where the resident felt a staff member had been rude. It agreed there were a number of occasions when the call handler interrupted. This would be raised with the call handler and further training provided.
10. It acknowledged that it had a backlog of complaints and had not been able to speak to the resident as promptly as it would have liked. It stated it had recruited a Senior Complaint Officer Team who were responsible for handling stage 2 complaints.
11. In recognition of the communication issues it offered £150 compensation.
On 4 July 2023 the resident advised this Service that he was having issues with the lift and that the repairs had not been completed.
On 7 July 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 in respect of the odour and the communal door. It outlined the works to the toilet and pipes that it had undertaken to clear the system on 6 June 2023. It stated that the communal door had been repaired in line with its service level agreement. To address the access issues the resident had experienced, the landlord offered £50 compensation. It had also provided the resident with a replacement key fob.
On 13 July 2023, a contractor placed the gas valve location label in a more visible area.
On 29 July 2023 both of the lifts stopped functioning and a lift contractor attended the same day and identified a fault. The contractor subsequently attended on 31 July 2023 and was able to get the righthand lift working.
On 1 August 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The lift had broken down on 31 July 2023 and his partner had been trapped.
2. The landlord had promised him a key but he had not been given this.
3. Meniere’s disease impacted his balance and he could not manage the amount of stairs to his property. He uses an E-scooter and there was nowhere to keep it other than his property. He suffers from mental ill-health so needed to leave the house every day.
4. There were smells coming from the stack pipe again.
5. There were people sitting in the communal doorway taking drugs.
This Service advised the landlord of the resident’s contact. The landlord opened a new complaint in respect of the new issues raised.
On 3 August 2023 the righthand lift stopped working. The lift contractor attended that day and found that a part needed replacing. Rather than order one and leave both lifts out of service, it took the part from the left hand lift to keep one lift operational whilst it ordered a new part.
The landlord advised the resident on 4 August 2023 that it had spoken to him on 1 August 2023 in respect of the key fob, however it had not correctly raised a task for this. It advised that it had re-raised this.
On 10 August 2023 the landlord wrote to the residents in the block and stated that one of the lifts was out of order. It apologised for the disruption and advised that its text updates would provide real time updates. It advised that residents may see contractors servicing the lifts but this did not mean that it had broken down.
On 14 August 2023 a contractor replaced the front door closures and removed the faulty door reader.
On 30 August 2023 the landlord responded at stage 1 to the issues of complaint which the resident had outlined to this Service (the new matters and matters which occurred after the stage 2 response was provided). It stated as follows:
1. In respect of the lift, the contractor had ordered a replacement part. This had been due to be delivered on 22 August 2023 however the wrong part was delivered. Another part arrived on 29 August 2023 however this arrived damaged so had to be reordered. The landlord advised there had not been a service failure.
2. It had previously addressed the resident’s request to be refunded service charges at stage 2. It therefore could not investigate this further however it reiterated that the resident did not pay a service charge for lift maintenance.
3. It had not raised a job correctly in response to the resident’s request for a key for the door (1 August 2023) in order to have access when the key fob system was down. The request was therefore not put through until 8 August 2023. It noted that the resident had now received this. It apologised for the mistake and the poor communication and advised this had been fed back to the staff member. It upheld this aspect of the complaint.
4. In respect of a telephone call with a member of its staff, it had listened to the call and noted that the resident had been shouting and swearing. The Customer Service Advisor had warned the resident twice that they would terminate the call if the resident continued. The staff member had also advised that it was not possible to transfer the resident to a Director. The staff member had offered to transfer the resident to the Customer Relations Team but this was declined. As the correct processes were followed, this aspect of complaint was not upheld.
5. It had previously addressed the communal cleaning so could only respond to new concerns. It had reviewed photographs provided by the resident (showing some rubbish in the hallways and another resident’s messy doormat) and concluded that the standard of cleaning was sufficient. Whilst it acknowledged the rubbish it did not believe this had been present prior to the communal cleaning. This was not upheld.
6. It was aware that the communal door kept being damaged and it believed this was caused by a group of youths, however it had not been able to identify them. It asked the resident to continue reporting this. It advised that the CCTV was fit for purpose. This was not upheld.
The resident escalated this complaint to stage 2 on 4 September 2023.
On 7 September 2023 the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He outlined how the matters had caused him to attempt to take his life in early 2023 (for which he stated he was admitted to hospital) and stated his complaint was as follows:
1. The odour.
2. The communal lift.
3. Maintenance of communal areas.
4. Poor communication, including missed call backs.
5. He requested as follows:
  1. A permanent fix for the lifts.
  2. For the landlord to be held accountable for its actions.
  3. Compensation.
  4. For the landlord to ensure the communal area was regularly maintained.
  5. If these were not possible then for the landlord to move the resident to a new property.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 15 September 2023 the landlord spoke to the resident about the lift. The landlord noted that during the call the resident stated that he would attend staff members homes if the lift was not fixed. That same day the resident advised this Service that the lift contractor had attended the day before to repair the lift but it had broken again within 24 hours. He stated this was stopping him from going out, his food being delivered and impacting his medical conditions.
On 20 September 2023 the resident advised the landlord that it had shared his data with its lift contractor which he stated was a breach of GDPR.
On 17 October 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated it had not responded to his complaint about a data breach. He sent an abusive tweet to the landlord.
On 20 October 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident about the tone of his communications. It stated that if the behaviour continued, it would consider taking tenancy enforcement action or restrict the residents communication.
On 26 October 202 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had sent him a letter about his behaviour. He stated the landlord was using this to threaten him as he had “used freedom of speech over twitter telling people not to do business” with the landlord. He stated he had not been threatening.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 (following the escalation from 4 September 2023). It stated as follows:
1. Given the distress and inconvenience caused by the lifts breaking down which resulted in the resident being stuck outside the building and having climb 24 flights of stairs carrying shopping, it should have offered redress at stage 1.
2. During a discussion with the resident in respect of the service charge he had clarified that he in fact meant to request a rent reduction for the lift being out of order. The landlord stated it could not offer this.
3. It had explained in July 2023 that the resident did not need a deadlock letter as he could refer his complaint to this Service. This had been confirmed by its legal team.
4. It did not believe there had been a data breach and signposted the resident to the Information Commissioner’s Office.
5. It had arranged to attend the property on 1 November 2023 to discuss the resident’s concerns about not feeling heard.
6. The letter in respect of his behaviour had been to set out the boundaries of acceptable behaviour.
7. It apologised that the stage 2 response was late and stated there had been a backlog of cases. It had recruited a new team to improve this.
8. It offered £200 made up as follows:
  1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the access issues.
  2. £50 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the lift outage which resulted in the resident climbing 24 flights of stairs.
  3. £100 in recognition that the stage 2 complaint was not resolved within the required timeframe.
On 1 November 2023 the landlord attended the resident’s property in response to his concerns about damp and mould. This could not be seen by the landlord however it arranged for a surveyor to attend and carry out an inspection.
On 3 November 2023 the resident advised this Service that the lift had been in and out of action and he felt as if he was being trapped in his property. Following this, on 16 November 2023 a lift inspection took place which identified some works required (it is not clear what these were).
On 22 November 2023 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. There was ongoing ASB and drug related activity in communal areas.
2. He believed that the lift was unsafe.
3. Ongoing odours.
4. Gas safety lever placement.
5. Work undertaken to enclose the balcony causing damp and mould.
6. The warning letter issued by the landlord.
7. Infestation of pigeons and mites.
On 3 December 2023 the landlord sent a letter to residents at the block to state that it would be hosting a “walk around” of the grounds on 9 December 2023 and invited residents to join to ensure all areas were clean, tidy and maintained to a good standard.
A surveyor attend on 15 December 2023 and confirmed that no damp, mould or water ingress could be found. It noted there was a noticeable smell in the bathroom and that there was a cat litter tray adjacent to the toilet. It summarised that no works were required.
On 20 December 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident following its visit on 1 November 2023. It stated as follows:
1. It had passed on the resident’s suggestion for additional call handling training when dealing with customers who have mental health issues. This training had been arranged.
2. It had considered the resident’s request for “time out” from a call should he become agitated. It had concluded this would not be practical.
3. During the visit it had discussed the issues with the lifts in detail including the repair schedule and the enhanced maintenance schedule for the lifts.
4. It had not identified any issues with non-residents in the communal areas during its visit.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The landlord signposted the resident to this Service in respect of his concerns about damp and mould and pigeons and mites in January 2022 following its response that same month (albeit outside of the complaints procedure). The resident did not refer the matter to this Service at the time. Paragraph 42 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that resident’s should bring matters to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of having completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
It was not until November 2023 (22 months later) that the resident advised this Service that he believed the works undertaken to enclose the balcony had caused damp and mould and raised issues with pigeons and mites. As the resident raised these issues again in November 2023, in the interest of fairness, the landlord must have the opportunity to investigate and respond to the resident’s recent concerns. The resident will therefore need to contact the landlord about this concern and, if appropriate, raise another complaint if he is dissatisfied with the way the landlord responds.
In addition, following the resident referring his complaint to the Housing Ombudsman and it being accepted for investigation by this Service on 7 September 2023 (the duly made date) the landlord subsequently addressed new aspects of complaint raised by the resident. As these had not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure at the time of the complaint being accepted by this Service, the following aspects have not been investigated within this report. The resident may wish to progress these matters through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure:
1. The lift breakdown on 14 September 2023, the impact this had on the resident’s food being delivered, his medical conditions and the landlord’s subsequent offer of redress.
2. The landlords’ decision not to offer a rent reduction in respect of the lifts.
3. Issues with the lifts in November 2023.
4. Reports of damp and mould from November 2023.
5. Odours in November 2023.
6. The warning letter issued by the landlord.
7. Concerns about a data breach.
It is noted that the resident has stated that the situation in respect of the repairs impacted on his health and mental health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.

Response to outstanding repairs

For clarity the resident’s concerns about repairs have been addressed separately.

Odour

When the resident reported an odour from the stack pipe (5 June 2022) the landlord acted appropriately in arranging for a contractor to attend the following day. Works were carried out on that occasion and further works to the stack pipes were recommended. This further work was completed on 15 and 29 June 2022 to both the resident’s and communal stack pipes respectively. Although the landlord’s repairs policy and online repairs information does not indicate a timeframe for non-emergency repairs, this Service generally considers a timeframe of 28 days for such repairs to be reasonable.
Following further reports from the resident of odours from the stack pipe and sink in April 2023, the landlord offered to visit the property. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord had taken a customer focused approach to try to understand what was causing the issue. It is noted that this visit did not go ahead at the resident’s request as the smell was no longer present. The landlord acted appropriately in advising the resident to let it know if the odour returned.
The resident reported odour again on 31 May 2023 and the landlord responded appropriately in visiting the property that same day. Despite no odour being identified, it arranged for the resident’s toilet to be descaled and “rodded”. This was reasonable and was something the landlord was not obliged to pay for given the resident’s acknowledgement that he sometimes disposed of cat litter down the toilet (and residents being required to keep drains free of blockages). The landlord went further in its steps to put things right for the resident, as it provided him with a new toilet on the recommendation of its contractor. The follow-on works to the drain were appropriately arranged by the landlord to be carried out within a week.
It is noted that the resident advised this Service in August 2023 that the odour had returned however the landlord has not had a chance to respond to this more recent concern via its internal complaints procedure. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to investigate the cause of the ongoing odour.
In respect of the landlord’s consideration of this matter through its internal complaints procedure it acted reasonably in attending the resident’s property to try to understand the issue. It acted appropriately in arranging cleaning works despite the resident being required to keep the drains clear of blockages and replaced the resident’s toilet free of charge.

Gas valve

The resident raised his concern about the position of the gas lever following his kitchen refurbishment (behind a kitchen cupboard) with the landlord on 10 November 2022. The landlord acted appropriately in instructing a gas operative to inspect the matter on 2 December 2022. After the operative advised that the location of both the gas meter and the valve was in line with regulation, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the advice of its contractor in not moving the installation. The landlord demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and also offered to remove a cupboard shelf to allow for easier access. Although the resident declined this, this was a reasonable offer from the landlord and showed a resolution focused approach.
Following this and despite being informed that the positioning of the lever was appropriate by its gas contractor, the landlord took further steps to liaise with the gas supplier to see if the pipes in the resident’s property could be moved. Whilst the resident indicated to this Service that this was not carried out, it was appropriate for the landlord to enquire as to the viability of this option.
Despite having advised the resident that the lever did not require moving, the landlord took his ongoing concerns seriously and arranged a gas safety inspection in June 2023. This provided confirmation that the valve did not require moving and that doing so would increase the risk of creating a potential leak source. Following this the landlord offered to replace the kitchen unit with a corner unit. This was reasonable and followed the advice within the gas inspection.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the resident does not feel the location of the valve is safe, it was appropriate for the landlord to act on the advice of its gas contractors in not changing the position. Within its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had not updated the resident after he had raised further concerns about the safety of the position of the valve. It offered £100 compensation in respect of this and advised that it would seek to improve communications with it contractors. This was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated that the landlord had considered how this issue had impacted on the resident’s mental health and that the valve placement had made him fearful for his safety.
In summary the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reported outstanding repairs. It attended to the reports in line with its repairs policy and demonstrated a resident focused approach to putting things right. It provided drain cleaning and a new toilet to the resident despite the resident having acknowledged that he had been disposing of cat litter down the toilet. It was not required to do either of these. In addition it responded to the resident’s concerns about the placement of the gas valve and treated his safety concerns seriously. It appropriately sought the opinion of gas specialists and acted on the advice of these contractors. This was reasonable. The landlord acknowledged that it could have communicated more clearly in respect of the gas valve and offered compensation of £100. This was reasonable in the circumstances and was in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance for a service failure with a low level of impact. There was therefore reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

Response to communal issues

For clarity the resident’s concerns about the communal issues have been addressed separately.

Communal lift

It is noted that in January 2023 the landlord introduced a process to understand resident’s support requirements should both lifts be out of use and that this included offering a concierge service. This was appropriate and demonstrated a resident focused approach which took account of resident’s individual requirements.
During a lift service on 9 May 2023 it was found that the motor room had become covered in pigeon faeces. Cleaning was carried out 2 days later and the lift was reinstated the following day. The landlord’s actions in having the lift repaired and back in working order within 3 days was reasonable.
Following a further breakdown of the lifts on 29 July 2023, a contractor attended the same day and identified a fault. A repair was subsequently carried out on 31 July 2023. This timeframe of 2 days was reasonable. It is noted that there was a further issue with the lift on 3 August 2023 with a contractor attending that same day. On that occasion the contractor was able to keep one lift operational. It is understandable that the resident was frustrated with the lifts breaking down however the landlord took appropriate steps to keep all residents informed via its real time text updates. This demonstrated an open and transparent approach.
The landlord has shown an appreciation of the importance of the lift to residents and an understanding of the impact the high usage had on the lifts. Following the resident’s complaint, it committed to more frequent lift servicing. It is noted however that in May 2023 it advised this was weekly however in July 2023 it advised that it had “increased” this to fortnightly. This was in addition to independent maintenance visits every 6 months. This information was contradictory and confusing for the resident as in fact the servicing had decreased from weekly to fortnightly and had not increased as the landlord advised. It is noted however that the servicing was frequent and the maintenance checks were above the required industry standard. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord understood the unique demands of the block.
The landlord acknowledged at stage 1 that there had been an issue with the repair (in August 2023) as the wrong part had been delivered and the part had arrived damaged. However from the landlord’s correspondence it is noted that it had been responsive to reports of the lifts breaking down and it responded in line with its repairs policy in respect of these. The landlord subsequently further considered its response to this aspect of the complaint following a further complaint from the resident in September 2023 (which as stated above is not being investigated in this report) and offered £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience of this. Whilst this should have been offered during the internal complaints procedure the offer of compensation was appropriate and demonstrated a resolution-focused approach.

Communal cleaning

Within its stage 1 response (17 May 2023) the landlord advised that the communal areas were cleaned and maintained on a fortnightly basis. It added that its Housing Partner also inspected the block every fortnight to ensure standards were being upheld (evidence of such has been seen by this Service). This was reasonable and was over the frequency stated in its neighbourhood procedure of monthly. The landlord subsequently addressed pictures taken by the resident in respect of areas he felt had not been cleaned. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken learning from the resident’s complaint and it was proactive in implementing a new system for its operatives to take before and after photos of the communal cleaning works. This was appropriate and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and was working to make things right.

Communal door

In respect of the communal door, the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend within 24 hours (on 4 January 2023). This was reasonable and in line with its repairs policy for emergency repairs. When the resident raised his concerns that the lock had been made safe rather than repaired the landlord arranged a further appointment. The repair of the lock was however delayed as the contractor needed more time and then did not have the correct part required. The lock was fixed on 14 February 2023, around 5 weeks since the issue was reported. Although the final repair took in excess of 28 days, the lock was made safe within a reasonable timeframe.
It is noted that prior to this (in May 2023) the resident raised related concerns that individuals had accessed the insecure communal area and were taking drugs. The landlord advised that it was working with the police and holding resident sessions to discuss concerns. It also advised that during its residential visits it could not identify any individuals who were not residents of the block. The landlord’s actions in respect of this were appropriate and demonstrated a commitment to tackling the issue. It subsequently (August 2023) advised that the door lock kept being damaged (it believed by vandalism) and asked the resident to keep reporting this. Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to have requested this, it did not explain what steps it was taking to prevent the vandalism becoming a reoccurring issue beyond asking resident to report instances. The landlord did not go far enough to resolve this matter of the cause of the insecure door or the security of the block.
When a failure is identified, as in this case with the communal door, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acknowledge that the contractor should have been prepared with the parts. It apologised and offered £50 compensation. Given that the nature of the outstanding repair led to the building being insecure, this offer of compensation was not sufficient. This Service has ordered additional compensation of £100 in respect of this. This acknowledges the impact this had on the resident in light of his vulnerabilities.
In summary the landlord responded appropriately to the resident concerns about the lifts and communal cleaning. It failed however to fully consider the impact the issue with the communal door lock had on the resident in light of his vulnerabilities. The landlord acknowledged some failings in how it responded to this aspect of complaint however its offer of £50 compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident. As such there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to communal issues.

Communication

The landlord apologised for any misunderstanding about its response to the resident’s call-back request from 7 March 2023. It advised that it had met its service level agreement of 5 working days and had returned his call on 10 March 2023. It is not clear if the landlord was referring to this same call, however it acknowledged that during a call there were a number of occasions when the call handler had interrupted the resident. The landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concern seriously. In addition it took learning from this identified failure by providing further training to the call handler. In addition it offered compensation of £150 to the resident for the impact this had on him.
In respect of a different call, the landlord concluded that a call handler had handled a situation appropriately when the resident had become abusive. Following the resident’s ongoing concerns about this, the landlord took appropriate action and met with the resident to discuss his concerns in person. Following this meeting the landlord committed to arranging additional call handling training when dealing with resident’s who have mental health issues. This demonstrated an understanding of the resident’s concerns and a resolution focused approach. In conclusion the landlord’s actions and offer of £150 in respect of its communication issues was reasonable and amounts to reasonable redress.

Complaint handling

The resident submitted a number of complaints in respect of the issues and the landlord did not respond in accordance with the timeframe set out in its complaints policy in respect of any of the complaints. Its response timeframes were as follows:
1. Complaint A- gas valve and communal door:
  1. Stage 1 took 24 working days (6 February – 10 March 2023).
  2. Stage 2 took 24 working days (15 March – 19 April 2023).
2. Complaint B- Odour, lift, communal cleaning, landlord’s communication:
  1. Stage 1 took 17 working days (20 April – 17 May 2023).
  2. Stage 2 took 27 working days (24 May – 3 July 2023).
3. Complaint C- Lift, door key, odour, ASB:
  1. Stage 1 took 21 working days (1 August – 30 August 2023).
  2. Stage 2 took 42 working days (4 September – 1 November 2023). As the landlord’s stage 2 response to complaint C was made after the complaint was brought to this Service, the landlord’s stage 2 response has not been considered in this investigation.
Although it is noted that the landlord encountered difficulties with the resident’s persistent communication which impacted its effort to respond to all the issues raised within the timeframes, it did not comply with its complaints policy in keeping the resident informed of the delays. This was not appropriate and added to the resident’s frustrations and not feeling heard.
In respect of complaint A the landlord failed to address the aspect of the communal door at stage 1 which was not appropriate. The landlord however acknowledged this failing within its stage 2 response and advised that it had recruited a new member of staff to prevent this happening again. This was appropriate and demonstrated that the landlord took its complaints handling and this failing seriously. Despite the stage 2 response also being late, the landlord only offered redress in respect of the late stage 1 response, namely £50 compensation.
In respect of complaint B, the landlord did not offer any redress for the delayed stage 1 or 2 responses. In addition it also provided incorrect information about the service charge. It is noted that there was some overlap between the complaint responses and the resident submitting further complaints about the same issues (communal door and odour). The landlord opened a new complaint for these same issues and as such the landlord responded to these issues at stage 2 on both 3 July and 7 July 2023. This caused unnecessary confusion to the resident.
In respect of complaint C the landlord did not address the ASB (drug taking in communal areas) aspect of the complaint (an order has been made in respect of this below). It did not give any explanation for this nor did it identify its failure to do so. This was not appropriate and an order has been made for the landlord to respond to this aspect below. At stage 1 the landlord did not offer any redress for the delayed response
It is noted that the landlord’s customer relations procedure allows for the landlord to respond to complaints outside of its complaints policy and for resident’s to request this. This is not appropriate and is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code). An order had been made in respect of this below.
In summary, the landlord consistently delayed its complaint responses and did not follow its complaints procedure by keeping the resident informed. It went some way to learn from its failures however it only offered compensation of £50 in respect of the delayed complaint A, stage 1 response. It did not do so for other failures. This was not appropriate and the compensation offered was not sufficient to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident nor the time taken by him in pursuing the matters. The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to a service failure. An order of an additional £100 has been made to acknowledge the impact this had on the resident. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident has been caused temporary distress and inconvenience by a failing of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to outstanding repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to communal issues.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded appropriately to the outstanding repairs and attended in line with its repairs policy. It went beyond its repair duty and provided drain cleaning and a new toilet to the resident despite the resident. In addition it took the resident’s concerns about the placement of the gas valve seriously and sought the opinion of gas specialists and acted on this advice. It appropriately acknowledged that it could have communicated more clearly in respect of the gas valve and offered appropriate compensation.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident concerns about the lifts and communal cleaning. It failed however to fully consider impact the issue with the communal door lock had on the resident in light of his vulnerabilities. The landlord’s offer of compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the impact of this on the resident.
The landlord acknowledged where its communications with the resident had fallen below that which it would expect. It outlined additional staff training in respect of this.
The landlord did not respond to any of the resident’s complaints in the timeframes provided in its complaints procedure. It did not keep the resident informed and did not go far enough in its offer of redress. Additionally, it failed to address some of the issues raised and it provided incorrect service charge information. As such it did not put things right for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Re-offer compensation (£50 in respect of the communal door lock and £50 for complaint handling) as offered during the internal complaints procedure if this has not already been paid.
3. Pay the resident an additional £200 in compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £100 to acknowledge the impact the issue with the communal door lock had on the resident.
  2. £100 to acknowledge the impact to the resident of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
4. Review its customer relations procedure in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code to ensure that all complaints are dealt with in line with the Code.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord investigate the ongoing odour reports from the resident.
It is recommended that the landlord clarify with the resident if there are any further aspects of complaint to be responded to via its internal complaints procedure.