Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Aster Group Limited (202205670)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205670

Aster Group Limited

16 November 2022


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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
    1. The resident’s concerns about signs in communal areas.
    2. the associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and occupies a property within a block.
  2. The landlord installed two signs in the communal area of the resident’s block to remind residents not to leave personal items in the communal areas. The resident removed the signs and subsequently made a complaint to the landlord on 23 March 2022 to express her dissatisfaction with these signs. The resident was unhappy that the signs were “unsightly” and impersonal and had damaged the paintwork when they were removed. She felt it was unfair that the repair to the paintwork would then be charged to residents through the service charge and said that the landlord should have first communicated with residents in writing before erecting the signs.
  3. After the landlord provided an initial explanation and a s stage one complaint response to the resident, she escalated her complaint to the final stage of the landlord’s internal complaints process on 15 April 2022, when she raised additional dissatisfactions with:
    1. The landlord not apologising for the damage caused to the walls by the removal of the signs and that the repair cost would be added to the service charge.
    2. Not all residents received letters about the signs, and the landlord’s practice of sending letters to communicate with residents as opposed to emails.
    3. The landlord not visiting her to inform her about the signs and the landlord being impersonal in its communication with residents.
    4. The landlord not dealing directly with specific residents who left items in communal areas and instead installed “ugly and offensive signs” which treated all residents as offenders.
    5. Her view that it was not a legal requirement for the signs to be added to the communal area.
    6. The landlord no longer affixing individual notices on offending items which she felt was less intrusive.
  4. The landlord issued a final response to the resident on 6 May 2022 in which it did not uphold her complaint. It agreed that the signs were formal, but maintained that they were not offensive and asserted that the communal areas were not part of the resident’s home. The landlord explained that the signs were installed to comply with the Interference with Goods Act 1977, and it had not changed its practice of affixing individual notices to items and had dealt with individuals directly about items they had left in communal areas. It confirmed the damage to the paintwork would be addressed as part of its next cyclical maintenance of the building. The landlord considered that its communication had been appropriate in tone and content, and that it did not see that personal visits about signage was a good use of resources; however, it would feedback to staff to consider a more personal approach in future.
  5. The resident informed this Service on 18 June 2022 that she remained dissatisfied because the repair to the paintwork would still be paid for by residents through the sinking fund. She also disputed receiving a notification letter about the signs and disagreed with the replacement of the signs, which she maintained were offensive. The resident disputed causing the damage to the paintwork by removing the signs and was unhappy the landlord had not conducted an inspection.

Assessment and findings

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about signs in communal areas
  2. There was no evidence of a failure by the landlord in its installation of the signs in the communal area. The landlord would be expected to take reasonable measures to ensure that communal areas were kept clear to allow safe passage in the event of an emergency. As part of this, the landlord should ensure that tenants’ personal items are not left in communal areas. The landlord should take appropriate action to make residents aware of their responsibilities for keeping communal areas clear and it should take enforcement action where appropriate against tenants who breach these rules.
  3. Furthermore, the lease agreement confirms that a resident is “not to leave or place…on the common parts and roads and paths and passages and forecourts of the estate any object whatsoever”. The landlord also has a “zero-tolerance approach to items in communal spaces”, as confirmed by its neighbourhood inspection procedure and neighbourhood management policy. It explained, in its stage one complaint response on 14 April 2022, that it could remove offending items immediately and this information was conveyed on the signs it erected; these were notices that the items would be removed, issued in accordance with the Interference with Goods Act, 1977.
  4. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to erect signage for the purpose of keeping communal areas safe and to remind residents of their obligations to keep communal areas clear. It was also reasonable for it to inform residents of the possibility of the immediate loss of any items placed in the communal areas in contravention of the lease. It would have been unreasonable for the landlord to have neglected to inform residents they may lose any possessions left outside of their properties in the communal areas.
  5. The resident was unhappy because she felt that the signs were intrusive, offensive, and made the block feel like a workplace instead of a home. The lease agreement between the resident and the landlord confirms that the common parts of the block, such as the corridors, entrance halls, landings and stairways, are not specifically demised to any leaseholder of a property in the block. Therefore, these areas were not part of her home and fall to the landlord to manage. The Ombudsman has not disregarded the resident’s comments about how the signs made her feel. However the landlord is entitled to erect signs in communal areas if it chooses to and it was not obliged to consult residents before erecting the signs.
  6. Furthermore, offensiveness is a subjective matter, and whilst the wording on the signs was formal, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it was inappropriate or unprofessional. The landlord demonstrated that considered the effect of the signs on residents and ensured that it did not install an excessive number of signs. It also sited the signs away from residents’ front doors. This was, therefore, a reasonable and proportionate approach by the landlord to balance the need to make residents aware of their responsibility for keeping communal areas clear while not adding an excessive number of signs.
  7. The resident contended that the landlord had caused damage which would then fall onto leaseholders to pay for, as the removal of signs had damaged the paintwork on the walls. However, the resident did not dispute that she removed the signs herself. As the damage incurred was a result of her actions, this would therefore be her responsibility to rectify. This is in accordance with the lease agreement, which states that a resident is to repair and make good any damage they cause to the common parts. The landlord’s recharges policy also confirms that it may recharge a resident when it incurs costs as a result of damage caused by a resident.
  8. The resident contended that the damage was only incurred as a result of the way in which the landlord had affixed the signs to the wall. However, as established above, these signs were not part of the resident’s home and the landlord was entitled to install signs in communal areas. Therefore, her removal of these was the cause of the damage and it was entitled to recharge her for its costs in remedying this. That it did not do so was a reasonable and proportionate approach by the landlord to seek to resolve the complaint, given that there was no evidence of extensive costs involved. It is acknowledged that the cost of repairing the paintwork will come from the sinking fund but this would be part of a wider cost of redecoration of communal areas and it is not possible to determine what the exact cost of repainting the area where the signs were would be aside from the overall decoration cost. It was reasonable for the landlord to opt to repaint these small areas of damage as part of a wider redecoration programme in order to manage costs which would ultimately be passed on to residents.
  9. The resident disputed receiving a communal letter related to the signs. The landlord did not directly address this point in its final complaint response. It would have been helpful for the landlord to clarify the content of this letter as part of its complaint response. However, given that its initial response on 23 March 2022, its stage one complaint response on 14 April 2022, and its final response on 6 May 2022 each clarified the situation regarding the notice signs, there is no evidence of any significant negative impact to the resident due to this error.
  10. The landlord’s stance, in its final complaint response on 6 May 2022, that its communications had been appropriate, was reasonable. This is because it would not have been proportionate for it to expend resources on conducting face–to–face meetings with residents over the installation of two signs which were reminders of information already present in the lease. A landlord would be expected to make the best use of its limited resources to ensure that a reasonable standard of service was provided to all residents. It also acted reasonably by acknowledging the resident’s wider point about impersonal communication and feeding this back to its staff to improve its future approach.
  11. In conclusion, there was no failure by the landlord as it reasonably installed signs to promote health and safety in the block. These were a proportionate measure and were appropriately sited in the areas which were the landlord’s responsibility to manage. It demonstrated a willingness to resolve the complaint by not recharging the resident for the damage she had caused and taking on board her feedback about its style of communication.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints procedure provides for a two-stage formal complaints procedure. This procedure commences when a matter cannot be resolved through its day-to-day provision of its services. At stage one of this procedure it is to provide its response to the resident within ten working days and at the final stage it should respond within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to meet either of these timeframes, it should explain why to the resident and provide its response within no more than a further ten days.
  2. After the landlord emailed the resident on 28 March 2022 to explain its reason for the installation of the signs, the resident escalated her complaint and, on being informed the complaint would be dealt with at stage one, disputed that it was a stage one complaint.
  3. The landlord’s complaints procedure above provides for a first contact about an issue to be dealt with as part of its day–to–day provision of service. Therefore, it was reasonable for its first response to the resident to be issued from the staff member who installed the signs to provide an explanation. The subsequent stage one and final stage complaint responses were issued without excessive delay and addressed the substance of the complaint. Therefore, there was no failure by the landlord in the handling of the complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to:
    1. The resident’s concerns about signs in communal areas.
    2. the associated complaint.