The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Brent Council (202003203)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003203

Brent Council

5 March 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 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:
    1. The landlord’s response to the reports of a repair needed to the intercom system.
    2. The landlord’s response to a repair reported about the side gate lock.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning service on the estate.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
    5. A repair reported for a streetlight column.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: a repair reported for a streetlight column.
  3. This is because paragraph 39(m) of the Scheme specifies that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident’s complaints about the streetlight fall properly within the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and therefore these aspects will not be considered in this investigation. The complaints about the landlord’s response to reports of repairs to the intercom system and the side gate lock, to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning service and complaint handling are within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and are considered below.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it is to provide cleaning and maintenance of common parts of the resident’s estate and provide and maintain an entry-phone system.
  3. The landlord’s responsive repairs manual states that its target timeframe for routine communal repairs is 28 calendar days with a two-hour appointment slot to be offered. This manual provides for flexibility to not attend at the allotted appointment time if this is agreed with the resident.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy provides for a two-stage formal complaints procedure with complaints to be acknowledged within 5 working days at both stages. At stage one the response to the resident should be provided within 20 working days and at the final stage this should be provided within 30 working days. The policy states that in escalating the complaint the resident should state which aspects of the complaint remain outstanding and why. The landlord does not have a compensation policy.

Summary of events

  1. On 1 May 2019 the resident made a complaint to the landlord, following conversations with it on 26 March 2019 about the new intercom system which she said was malfunctioning.
  2. After speaking to the landlord on 12 August 2019, the resident wrote to it on 21 August 2019 raising several issues including the intercom system and standard of the communal cleaning and groundskeeping.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord again on 17 September 2019 to complain about the standard of the communal cleaning and groundskeeping.
  4. On 19 September 2019 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident under its formal complaints procedure. It confirmed that the intercom system repair was completed under warranty on 20 August 2019. The landlord upheld this complaint in light of the length of time taken to resolve since her first report.
  5. The landlord said that it had stopped using a third-party contractor for communal cleaning and hoped that this would now have a positive impact on the standard of the cleaning service. It advised that it held weekly meetings with its contractors and examined complaints in detail to ensure repairs were completed. The landlord offered a visit to discuss any outstanding repairs identified by the resident. The landlord confirmed that it could not offer any refund for repairs as these fell under its service charge agreement with the resident; however, it offered her a goodwill gesture of £100.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 December 2019 to complain about the inclusion of a charge on her service charge statement for a repair to the intercom entry system; and the standard of the groundskeeping.
  7. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 8 January 2020 in which it acknowledged that a charge for intercom entry system repair should not have been charged and a refund to her would be processed of £5.35. It said it would be meeting with its grounds maintenance contractor to address issues with this. The landlord also offered £100 to the resident for the inconvenience she had experienced.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 January 2020, asserting that she had contacted it numerous times about the weekly communal cleaning being of a poor standard. She wanted compensation for this issue as she said this had been “going on for years”. The resident also reported that the side gate lock had been broken by another resident and she wanted this repaired urgently because she was concerned about the security of the building and wanted compensation for this. She wrote again on 27 January 2020 to ask it to address the issues she had raised.
  9. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 March 2020 highlighting that she had not yet received a response to her letters of 21 and 27 January 2020 and asked for compensation.
  10. On 19 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to offer to meet her to discuss her complaint about the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance.
  11. The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 24 March 2020. In this, it advised that, as per its email on 19 March 2020, it would be contacting her directly about the communal cleaning issues she had raised, to discuss her request for compensation. The landlord advised that it would contact the neighbour responsible for leaving the gate open to stress the need to lock this to maintain the security of the building.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 2 April 2020 to report that the communal cleaner had not attended regularly, and the standard of cleaning had been unsatisfactory. She added that the standard of grounds maintenance had been poor, with rubbish and weeds left behind.
  13. On 5 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord replying to the stage one complaint response, to repeat that the cleaner had not attended to carry out communal cleaning; she said wanted compensation for this ongoing issue. She requested that it repair the side gate as a priority because it posed a security risk. She added that she had not received a response to her complaint made on 21 August 2019 about the intercom entry system.
  14. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 June 2020 asking to escalate her complaint to the final stage. The landlord acknowledged the final stage complaint escalation on 15 June 2020.
  15. The landlord issued a final stage complaint response to the resident on 14 July 2020 in which it noted that she had contacted it on 21 January, 4 March, 2 and 5 April 2020 about the standard of communal cleaning. It acknowledged that it only responded to her contacts on 8 January and 19 March 2020 about this. The landlord apologised for not giving the resident an update on the issue by 24 January 2020 as promised, explaining that this was because the proposed resolution had not been monitored. It proposed to provide her with a copy of the cleaning schedule within a week and increase its monitoring of the cleaning in the coming four weeks to identify any issues.
  16. Regarding the damaged side gate lock, the landlord confirmed that the gate had been repaired on 1 July 2020 and it would waive her share of the cost of the repair in recognition of the delay in resolving this. It also confirmed it would write to the relevant residents to remind them to use the doors correctly.
  17. The landlord noted that the resident asserted that she had not received a response to her letter of 21 August 2019 about concerns with the intercom entry system. It explained that this had been responded to as a complaint on 19 September 2019 when it had acknowledged initial faults with the intercom entry system and had awarded her compensation of £100 for this and other issues (paragraph 13).   
  18. The landlord apologised for its delays and oversights in dealing with the resident’s correspondence which resulted in unnecessary time and effort on her part. It stated it would investigate why her letter of 21 January 2020 was responded to after two months and why her email of 5 April 2020 was not received. The landlord also advised that it would reiterate the importance of adhering to its complaint handling timeframes. In recognition of the issues it had identified, it offered £250 in compensation to her. (The landlord has confirmed that that is in addition to the £100 offered for the intercom issue.)
  19. On 18 September 2020 the resident advised this Service that she continued to be dissatisfied that the cleaner had not attended on several occasions between 30 July and 7 September 2020. She added that she refused to pay, through her service charge, for additional attendances required to repair the intercom entry system and she wanted compensation for its “inadequate services” in this respect. The resident contended that the landlord’s offer of compensation was “very low” in light of the “enormous” time she had spent dealing with it over a number of years about housing maintenance issues.

Assessment and findings

  1. It is noted that the resident has communicated to this Service on 18 September 2020 that the standard of service received from the landlord merits the reduction or refund of service charges. It should be clarified that the Ombudsman does not consider complaints concerning the level of service charge, or level of service charge increase as this Service does not have the legally binding authority to make a determination on these matters. Instead, complaints about the level, reasonableness or liability of service charges should be brought to the First Tier Tribunal. This investigation will therefore focus on the standard of service provided by the landlord in response to the issues raised by the resident.

The standard of the landlord’s intercom system installation work

  1. The landlord’s lease agreement confirms that it is obliged to provide and maintain an intercom system (paragraph 6). The resident reported a malfunction with this system in late March 2019 (paragraph 9); it was fixed on 20 August 2019. The delay in carrying out this repair was not appropriate. The landlord offered compensation of £100 to the resident on 19 September 2019 for this delay. This was a proportionate award to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident by her contact with the landlord about this matter and is broadly in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The landlord’s response to a repair reported to the side gate lock

  1. The lease confirms that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the common parts of the estate (paragraph 6). The repair to the side gate was reported by the resident to the landlord on 21 January, 5 April, 5 June and 22 June 2020 before it confirmed on 14 July 2020 that it had been repaired on 1 July 2020. This repair was completed 162 calendar days after the initial report on 21 January 2020 and was 134 calendar days in excess of the timeframe specified in the landlord’s responsive repairs manual (paragraph 7).
  2. In the landlord’s final response on 14 July 2020, it explained that there had been “confusion” over this issue but it did not adequately explain the delay as the resident’s reports had been clear in stating that the side gate had been damaged. The landlord did not act appropriately as it did not carry out this repair in accordance with the timescales set out in its responsive repairs manual.
  3. The landlord offered to waive the resident’s share of the cost of this repair. It recognised that further compensation was appropriate to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by having to chase up this matter on several occasions. I have dealt with compensation, below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning service on the estate

  1. In addition to the resident’s contacts on 12 August and 17 September 2019, she raised the issue of the standard of communal cleaning in her most recent stage complaint on 21 and 27 January, and 4 March 2020, resulting in an offer from the landlord on 19 March 2020 to meet with her to discuss the issue; it is unclear if this meeting took place from the evidence provided. Further contact from the resident on 5 April, 5 June and 22 June 2020 bears out the landlord’s admission on 14 July 2020 in its final stage complaint response that it did not monitor the issue and did not respond to all of her contacts.
  2. When a landlord receives a report from a resident of a service being unsatisfactory, it would be expected, in the first instance, to inspect the issue. There is no evidence of it doing this and this represents a failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of below standard communal cleaning.
  3. To resolve the resident’s complaint, the landlord proposed, in its final stage complaint response on 14 July 2020, to provide the cleaning schedule to her and increase its monitoring of the cleaning. That was a reasonable response to address the issue. The landlord also recognised that financial compensation was appropriate given the level of involvement required of the resident to progress this matter. I have considered compensation further, below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident raised a stage one complaint on 21 January 2020 which was not responded to until 19 March 2020, with the formal stage one response issued on 24 March 2020. She then emailed it on 2 and 5 April 2020 expressing dissatisfaction with its service and again on 5 June 2020 before her complaint was escalated to the final stage. This was acknowledged on 15 June 2020, and a final response issued on 14 July 2020.
  2. The stage one response was issued 22 working days in excess of the 20 working day timeframe specified in the landlord’s complaints policy, above at point 8, and the final stage complaint response was issued 39 working days in excess of the 30 working-day timeframe specified.
  3. While the resident’s complaints on 2 April 2020 and 5 April 2020 were not explicitly worded as escalation requests, the landlord missed an opportunity to identify that she continued to be dissatisfied and that the complaint remained unresolved. It would have been reasonable and expedient for it to have escalated the complaint to the final stage at that point. Its failure to do so is likely to have caused protracted dissatisfaction with the handling of her complaint. The landlord again recognised the financial compensation was appropriate to reflect the inconvenience caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures it identified.
  4. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation in its final stage complaint response of 14 July 2020, in recognition of its acknowledged failures in responding to complain handling, communication, the delay in repairing the side gate, and its lack of monitoring of its proposed resolution to the resident’s concerns over communal cleaning. This was a reasonable offer which was proportionate to the impact on the resident. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been a failure over a considerable amount of time in respect addressing repairs, poor communication and complaint handling.
  5. It should be clarified that, in awarding compensation, the Ombudsman does not seek to punish nor make an example of the landlord. The purpose of compensation is to put right any service failures identified and proportionally recognise any likely distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer to redress to the resident prior to investigation which resolves the complaint about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to a repair needed to the intercom system.
    2. Response to a repair reported about the side gate.
    3. Response to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning service on the estate.
    4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

  1. The repair to the side gate lock was delayed significantly by the landlord and necessitated additional involvement by the resident to resolve, which it acknowledged. The landlord offered reasonable compensation which was proportionate to impact on the resident.
  2. The landlord failed to monitor its proposed resolution to the resident’s concerns about the standard of the communal cleaning service. The landlord offered reasonable compensation which was proportionate to impact on the resident.
  3. The landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident on 19 September 2019 for its acknowledged delays in repairing the intercom entry system.
  4. The landlord delayed significantly in responding to the resident’s most recent complaint at both stages and failed to escalate the complaint in a timely manner. The landlord offered reasonable compensation which was proportionate to impact on the resident.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord should take the following action:
    1. Pay the resident the compensation offered in September 2019 of £100 (if it has not done so already).
    2. Pay the resident the compensation offered in July 2020 of £250 (if it has not done so already).
    3. Liaise with the resident to discuss and inspect the standard of the communal cleaning and provide updates to her on how it will monitor any improvements that need to be made.