Clarion Housing Association Limited (202202310)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202310

Clarion Housing Association Limited

4 December 2023

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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould issues around the bedroom windows and associated damage to the wall and windowsill.
2. Reports concerning the communal areas including the solar panels being defective and not good value for money, and concerns about the lifespan of the water tanks and expansion vessels being charged for through service charges.
3. Request to install a gate to the front of the property.
4. Request for a detailed breakdown of service charges over the last 5 years due to the fluctuating level of the charges.
5. Query regarding the level of the service charge in 2020 which was higher than the estimated charges.
6. Request to set up a residents’ committee.
7. The associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After careful consideration, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint issues are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Query regarding the level of the service charge in 2020 which was higher than the estimated charges.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The resident may wish to refer this matter to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which considers disputes concerning the level of service charges. She may also wish to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a ground floor flat.
The landlord emailed internally on 18 May 2021 asking if it had repairing responsibility in respect of the windows. It was unclear whether the query was as a result of the resident’s report or an observation made by the landlord that the windows were letting in water.
The landlord’s internal records indicate that it undertook an estate walkabout on 8 November 2021. It reported during the visit that “all was well”.
The landlord instructed a water hygiene inspection which was completed on 11 August 2021 in respect of cold water tank storage within the communal area. The risk identified was “likely to be moderate” due to presence of stored cold water and showers in the apartments. Full risk control measures were required. It contained recommendations that if completed, would reduce the risk to low.
The landlord’s internal email of 25 November 2021 confirmed that the landlord would be responsible to repair the window. It confirmed that the resident would be responsible to repair the glass only.
The resident submitted a formal stage one complaint on 29 November 2021. In this she detailed:
1. Damp and mould issues around the windows had resulted in damage to the wooden window. She felt that this was not the responsibility of shared owners. She felt this was due to “poor workmanship during construction”. She advised that windows that had trickle vents also experienced issues with damp and mould.
2. The solar panel system that was presented as a feature to shared owners was not working correctly and felt that this should be either fixed or replaced. She felt a refund should be given to shared owners.
3. She advised that due to antisocial behaviour issues and associated security concerns that had been reported to the building manager, that flats with their own ground entry door should have a gate fitted to the front of the property.
4. She requested a detailed breakdown of service charges over the last 5 years as she advised that these charges fluctuate with no justification.
5. She wished for a residents’ committee to be established to improve communication between the landlord and residents and to assist the landlord in providing better services.
6. She was concerned about the lifespan of the large water tanks and expansion vehicles. These were replaced; however, the resident was concerned that it would be a “matter of time before there are leaks”.
The landlord phoned the resident on 7 December 2021 to discuss her complaint. The landlord’s records detail that as a remedy the resident wished for all of the complaint issues to be addressed and for the repairs to be fixed.
The landlord’s internal complaint records of 18 December 2021 detail that it had sent invoices and a breakdown of service charges for 2019 to 2020, and 2020 to 2021 to the resident.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 7 January 2022. In this it detailed:
1. It was not previously aware of the issues the resident had raised and no issues were identified during its recent site visit.
2. Damp and mould “within the flat would be your own responsibility as a shared owner”.
3. It was aware of “safety issues with the ground floor”, and that there was a case under investigation. However, it was unable to share due to general data protection regulations (GDPR). It apologised for this.
4. It had arranged for its neighbourhood response officer to make contact with the resident to arrange a “walkabout to go through all of your concerns”.
5. It would “welcome a resident committee and would be to discuss this” during the visit. It had sent a full breakdown of the service charges in response to a different complaint and would not be requesting these again.
6. It awarded £50 compensation for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint.
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 23 January 2022. She advised that she felt the landlord had not considered her comments. She asked when the updated breakdown of service charges would be provided for 2020 and 2021.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was sent on 18 March 2022. In this it detailed:
1. An apology that the response at stage one was not adequate.
2. The landlord had requested an inspection by its technical inspection officer of the window. It would update the resident following this and if it was determined that this was due to a design defect, it would follow its internal defect process.
3. It advised that the servicing of the solar power system within the resident’s own flat was the resident’s responsibility. It would contact its contractor to provide a quote, or the resident could contact the contractor herself, or go to another provider. The building manager had “confirmed that the actual system itself is working and is subject to regular servicing.
4. It advised that a gate had been fitted at a neighbouring property due to specific circumstances and it was unable to breach confidentiality to provide a reason. It was not aware of any ongoing antisocial behaviour. It would not be installing security gates “where there are no known and ongoing antisocial behaviour issues”. If the resident wished to install this herself, she could request permission to alter the property and it referred to the resident’s lease.
5. It had provided a breakdown of the service charges so had not investigated this any further. It had requested the “actuals for the year 2020/2021, which was issued on 21 September 2021.
6. It would set up a “task and finish group” with regard to the resident’s request for resident involvement. It would contact residents and “an action plan will be established, and regular meetings held with residents and the managing agent”. The first meeting would likely be in a month.
7. With regard to resident’s report of a faulty expansion vessel in the large water tank, it advised that it had replaced the faulty expansion vessels previously. It advised that “it is important to note that leaks do happen at times for a variety of reasons”. Where this happens the “building manager will engage the correct contract to fix the issue”.
8. It awarded £100 compensation in respect of the service failure identified with the handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the resident’s bedroom window on 22 March 2022.
The resident emailed the landlord on 10 April 2022. She advised that during the surveyor’s inspection of the windows, that it had been agreed that the windows were not adequate and needed a vent. She stated that she had been advised that the damage to the windowsill would not be the landlord’s responsibility and that the resident should claim through her buildings insurance. However, her insurer advised that it would not consider the issue. She disputed that it was her responsibility. She asked when the solar panel system was last checked or serviced and a copy of the report. She advised that the solar panels were not saving residents any money as it was costly to maintain them. She disagreed with the landlord’s decision not to install gates unless some serious antisocial behaviour occurred. She was surprised at the increase in service charge for 2020-2021 as this was during the period of national lockdowns. She felt that this should have been discussed with shared owners at the time. She was disappointed that the building manager had not assisted previously with her enquiries.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 3 May 2022. As a remedy, she wished for the landlord to undertake the following actions:
1. To replace the window in the bedroom to one with a vent to prevent damp and mould, and to repair the wall surfaces that she reports have been affected by damp and mould.
2. To admit to misleading shared owners concerning the solar panels and to replace the system to a “better performing system or reasonably compensate shared owners for misleading them into buying a property we thought was ‘green’ and would save us money and energy”.
3. To install a gate to address the resident’s security concerns.
4. To answer the resident’s queries concerning her service charges for services that she advises were not undertaken during lockdown including cleaning, gardening, and window cleaning.
5. To listen to the residents and to “propose a sustainable way to give the opportunity for all shared owners to communicate and discuss issues and suggestions to improve our lives in the property and the sense of community”.
6. To explain the plans to replace the expansion vessels at the end of their lifespan. The resident stated that she feels it would be unfair for residents to pay for this.

Events following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The landlord’s internal email of 7 July 2022 contained an undated webchat from the resident concerning outstanding issues from her complaint. In this the resident had asked why a task and finish group had not been set up as promised in the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 March 2022. She had not heard back following the window inspection.
The landlord raised a works order on 7 July 2022 that was marked cancelled. The notes state that it was awaiting an update following a surveyor’s visit on 22 March 2022. It detailed that the resident had asked for the report and proposed actions to be emailed to her. A further works order that had been raised on 25 July 2022 was also marked cancelled. It detailed that the resident had refused the work as she was awaiting an update following the surveyor’s visit of 22 March 2022.
The landlord sent a further “addendum” to its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023. In this it:
1. Apologised for the delay in providing a formal update on the resident’s outstanding issues. It awarded a further £150 compensation for this delay.
2. It advised that there had been delay in setting up the promised task and finish group with residents due to lack of resources to “support this arrangement at the time”. It stated that a cyber incident had compounded the delay. A first meeting had been set up for 7 September 2022. It attached an action plan that had been agreed with residents and it would monitor the progression of the issues raised.
3. Advised that a new surveyor had been appointed and it was unable to “find the outcome” of the previous inspection. It “noted that the windows had rusted as a result of water penetration”. It had raised a works order on 21 October 2022, however, the operative reported that a vent was not necessary and that there was only cosmetic damage rather than a “structural fault”. Its surveyor had queried the finding and suggested that the “rusted area be repaired and painted to match the existing window frame”. The resident had refused these works as she felt that a vent would be needed to resolve the damp and mould issues. It had reconsidered its position and had raised a works order to install a trickle vent to the window and to complete the previously “refused works”.
4. Apologised for the “clear delays and internal miscommunication, which has resulted in further inconveniences”. It awarded a further £350 compensation for the “additional service failures” comprising £150 for delay in a further response and complaint handling and £200 for additional delay, failure to keep the resident informed, inconvenience, failure to follow policy and procedure and “repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem”.
The landlord raised a works order on 26 January 2023.The resident rescheduled to 9 March 2023. The work included the installation of window vents and the replacement of the windowsill. The repair record does not detail the completion date and the landlord’s update of 14 March 2023 states that the replacement windowsill had been added to the order. The landlord has since advised the Ombudsman that it installed a gate at the resident’s property on 8 December 2022.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. put things right, and;
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

The resident’s stage one complaint was submitted to the landlord as a group complaint on behalf of a number of residents in the building. However, the landlord did not have confirmation that the resident could act on behalf of the other residents. As such the complaint was dealt with as a singular complaint by the resident. The resident’s complaint referred to the Service has also been referred as a singular complaint, as opposed to a group complaint. As such this investigation has focussed on the resident’s individual complaint specifically.
The resident’s complaint referred to issues that had been raised over a period of some years. The landlord has also provided the Ombudsman with service charge information from 2017 to 2018 onwards. The landlord advised us that it had continued to liaise with its managing agent during the lockdown period between 30 March 2020 and 11 May 2020. It states that it continued to provide services particularly in regard to health and safety and statutory servicing requirements during this time.
For the purpose of this investigation, in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the period considered is 6 months prior to the resident’s stage one complaint of 29 November 2021. This is in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.

Policy and procedures

According to the lease, the resident is required to:
1. To “keep the interior of the premises and the glass in the windows and doors (if any) of the premises” and the interior of the property in a good state of repair.
2. To allow access to the landlord and its contractors to the property to carry out repairs to communal areas/services.
The landlord’s obligations under the terms of the terms of the lease are to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the roof, exterior of the building, communal areas, window frames and any communal pipework and other equipment required for the provision of water, electricity and heating to the building.
The estate owner is responsible for the maintenance, repair and redecoration of the “roof, foundations and main structure of the basement car park”. It is responsible for the “estate common parts”.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) allows local authorities to identify hazards in the home. This tool can consider hazards arising from hygiene, sanitation and water supply. It is not clear whether the resident has reported the hygiene, sanitation and water supply to the local authority and she may wish to do so in order for an assessment to be made. The local authority may consider whether any notices are required to be served upon the landlord for failing to comply with regulations/causing a hazard due to the reported issues with the water tanks.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to compensation and/or financial redress. It considers discretionary compensation using different ranges:
1. £50 to £250 – service failures, such as not returning calls, meeting service standards or using the complainant’s preferred method of communication.
2. £250 to £700 – considerable failure.
3. £700+ – this is where there is “significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”.
The landlord operated a 2 stage complaints policy when the resident initially raised her complaint. It stated that “if an initial attempt to resolve the query is not achieved, a formal complaint will be recorded and will be investigated”. It would aim to respond to a complaint at stage one within 10 working days. However, if it was unable to do this it would keep a resident informed and advise of a timescale for a response. It would respond at stage 2, a peer review, within 20 working days. If a longer timescale was required it would keep a resident informed and advise of a prospective timescale for a response.
The landlord introduced an interim complaints policy in June 2022 due to a cyber-attack. This was in operation during the landlord’s internal complaints process for the resident’s complaint. The timescales in the interim complaints policy allow the landlord to respond at stage one within 20 working days. If it is unable to respond within this timescale, it will “provide a timeline of when your complaint will be in a position to provide a full response”. It will acknowledge a complaint at stage two within 10 working days and respond within 40 working days. If it is unable to respond within this timescale, it will “provide a timescale” and it will advise “approximately how long your peer review will take”.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy details that emergency repairs will be attended to within 24 hours, non-emergency repairs are “at residents convenience” and are scheduled within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. Communal repairs should be completed within 28 days. Repairs due to flood damage are completed through its responsive repairs process, “to an acceptable standard which comply with current statutory standards, and to a specification”.
The landlord’s latent defects process details that where a property is within the defects liability period that it will refer this to its development customer care team. If the problem concerns a communal area it will refer this to its managing agent, and identify the freeholder. The landlord would refer the issue to its development delivery team. This may result in action to write to the building contractor to rectify the issue.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with an inspection report for the solar hot water system dated 20 September 2023. This advised that there were multiple banks of panels but one panel per flat. Its contractor advised that the system “is not communal, but individual, independent systems”. The panels on the roof were numbered for each flat and were reported to be in good condition.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues around the bedroom windows and associated damage to the wall and windowsill

The landlord’s records indicate that it was aware of an issue of water penetrating through the windows in May 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no further records regarding the damp and mould issues around the bedroom windows until the landlord’s internal email of 11 November 2021. At this time the landlord seemed to be unsure of its repairing responsibilities. There was a 6 month delay in the landlord finding out about its responsibility for repairing the window. Its internal email confirmed that it was responsible for the window repairs, whilst the resident was responsible for the glass only. The landlord referred to the issue possibly being a defect and according to its latent defects process above, this would potentially need to be referred to the relevant team. There is no record that this happened or whether the landlord considered that it was not a latent defect. Its record keeping was therefore insufficiently robust to demonstrate that this had been considered.
It is not clear from the repairs records whether the resident raised the issue of the windows at another time as there are no repair records for the property until July 2022. It is surprising that there are no earlier repair records given that the landlord had reported that it was aware of the issue with the windows in May 2021. The lack of repairs records was confirmed in the landlord’s internal email of 14 February 2022 when it identified no repairs had been raised in respect of the windows. It is not clear therefore whether the landlord’s records are incomplete (which could indicate that there are some record keeping issues) or whether the resident had not reported the issue. The resident indicated in her escalation request to stage 2 of the complaints process of 23 January 2022 that she had reported the issues raised in her complaint to the building manager. She asked why the issues were not passed on to the landlord and managing agent. As there are no records regarding this report to the building manager it is not possible to draw conclusions on the resident’s report. However, it is clear that the resident’s contact was not logged as it should have been, which is in itself a failure by the landlord.
The landlord clearly recognised that it needed to look into the issue, but there was delay in dealing with the matter. It stated in its internal emails of 25 to 28 February 2022 that it needed to send a surveyor to inspect the windows. This would be expected so that it could determine any works required to remedy water penetration that would cause damp and mould. The landlord did not agree with the outcome of its communication with its managing agent who suggested that the damp and mould would be the resident’s responsibility. This was appropriate given the landlord’s repairing obligations outlined within the lease above. However, it needed to take action at an earlier point in line with its repairs policy above. Its surveyor did not attend until 22 March 2022. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents contains a number of recommendations that the landlord should self-assess against to improve its communication with its building manager, managing agent and subsequently its services provided to its residents.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord promised to update the resident after its surveyor’s visit, but it failed to do this. It was the resident who contacted the landlord on 7 July 2022 asking for an update following the surveyor’s visit of 22 March 2022. It was unreasonable that the resident had to chase this up, especially since the landlord was aware of this issue in May 2021 and in November 2021.
It was not until the resident’s chase up in July 2022, that the landlord raised 2 works orders that were subsequently cancelled. The work orders were cancelled because the resident wanted the promised update following the landlord’s surveyor’s visit on 22 March 2022. This did cause further delay, though it was understandable that the resident wished to find out exactly what work was going to take place in response to the surveyor’s inspection. The landlord had promised this update in its stage 2 complaint response in March 2022, but it had failed to deliver it.
There was evidence of inadequate communication between the different parties involved in the repairs and maintenance. The landlord was unable to find out the outcome of its surveyor’s visit on 22 March 2022. The landlord’s communication with the resident was also lacking and it failed to give timely updates which meant that the resident had the inconvenience, and time and trouble in chasing up the landlord in July 2022. This led to further delay and a different surveyor who needed to determine what work was required.
As of 14 March 2023, a replacement sill had been added to a works order to repair the windows and sill. This meant that it took one year and 4 months for definitive action to be taken which was unreasonable and outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales above. These failings combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website). The remedies guidance states that for maladministration that compensation of between £100 and £1000 is appropriate. In this case compensation of £700 is appropriate comprising £500 in respect of the long delays in the landlord dealing with the issue and £200 in respect of the additional inconvenience, time and trouble experienced by the resident as a result of the landlord’s errors.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the communal areas including the solar panels being defective and not value for money, and concerns about the lifespan of the water tanks and expansion vessels.

The resident reported issues with the solar panels and her concerns regarding the lifespan of the water tanks and expansion vessels in her stage one complaint of 29 November 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no earlier reports made by the resident about these issues prior to this. The lack of available records indicates that there could be issues with the landlord’s record keeping as mentioned above.
The landlord did not specifically respond to the issue concerning solar panels in its stage one response of 7 January 2022 which would have been appropriate. It missed this opportunity. The landlord advised in its response that it had arranged for its neighbourhood response officer to make contact with the resident to arrange a “walkabout to go through all of your concerns”. The Ombudsman has seen no record of this walkabout or confirmation of the issues raised if the walkabout took place. Whilst a walkabout was undoubtedly a reasonable suggestion due to the number of issues the resident had raised, the landlord needed to address the specific issue in its complaint response. It could have then discussed the resident’s further concerns during the walkabout about the solar panels, along with the water tanks and expansion vehicles. There are records confirming that the landlord regularly services the water tanks and expansion vehicles and there been a recent replacement. However, the landlord could have explained this more fully to the resident and the Ombudsman has seen no records that it did this.
The landlord did not issue a response concerning the solar panels until its stage 2 complaint response of 18 March 2022. In this the landlord advised that the solar panels were not defective. It advised that its managing agent had stated that it would be up to owners to service the system in their own flats. It offered to contact its contractor for a quote for this. It also advised that there was regular servicing in place. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide further detail concerning the servicing of the solar panels, for example, the fact that they were individual independent systems, any remedial works that may have been carried out in addition to this. This would have assisted the resident in understanding the system that had been installed. The Ombudsman has seen no records that this information was provided. As there are no repair logs for any defects of the solar panel system, there is insufficient evidence for the Ombudsman to determine whether the solar panels were performing as the resident expected. The landlord’s communication was not adequate as it failed to provide a sufficient update or information and the Ombudsman has seen no records that indicate that it gave a timescale to provide the resident with a meaningful response.
There was service failure as the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding the solar panels and water tanks and expansion vehicles in a timely manner and it took nearly 4 months for it to give a response on this matter. For cases of service failure, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation of between £50 to £100 is appropriate. For this specific complaint issue, compensation of £100 is appropriate due to the delay in the landlord’s response and lack of appropriate record keeping for the issues raised.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a gate to the front of the property.

The Ombudsman has seen no earlier records of the resident’s request for a gate to be installed at the front of her property prior to her stage one complaint of 29 November 2021. This is indicative as mentioned of a lack of appropriate record keeping. The landlord needs to ensure that it has good and accurate records for its own housing stock management, as well as to give residents accurate information on request. It needs to ensure that it is aware of its repairing responsibilities in accordance with its leases. This would then prevent delay in responding to issues raised by its residents. From the resident’s escalation request to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident stated that the complaint issues had been reported to the building manager. She asked why the issues had not been passed on to the landlord or managing agent. This not only indicates record keeping issues, but also communication issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the building manager for any records that they would have concerning the resident’s issues raised.
With regard to the resident’s request for a gate, the landlord responded on 18 March 2022 that it would not install a gate at the resident’s property. It advised that the resident could seek to install a gate herself, but that it would not do this where there were no reported antisocial behaviour issues. As the landlord advised it had not been informed of any specific antisocial behaviour issues, then its response was appropriate at this point. A gate, not already installed, would be deemed to be an improvement. The landlord would be responsible for its repairing obligations under the terms of the lease but not for an improvement. The landlord’s internal email of 28 October 2022 stated that the landlord had no records that it had received a request from the resident for it to install a gate. The landlord has since used its discretion to fit a gate in line with the resident’s request which was reasonable.
Although the landlord was not obliged to install a gate, it should have responded to the resident’s query in a timely manner. There was service failure due to the delay in answering the resident’s query concerning the installation of a gate at the front of the property. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above, compensation of £50 is appropriate in this case due to the delay in providing a response. However, it is recognised that the landlord has since installed a gate at its discretion which is reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a detailed breakdown of service charges over the last 5 years due to the fluctuating level of the charges.

The Ombudsman has seen no earlier records of the resident asking for a detailed breakdown of her service charges over the last 5 years until her stage one complaint of 29 November 2021. The resident clearly wished for an explanation as to the fluctuating levels of her variable service charges. In her referral to the Ombudsman, she specifically mentioned the fact that some of the services were not happening in 2020 due to the lockdowns in place at the time.
The landlord did advise internally that it provided information covering 2 years from 2019 to 2020, and for 2020 to 2021. Its internal email of 18 December 2021 indicated that this had been sent to the resident at this point. The resident asked for further information in her escalation request to stage 2 of the complaints process on 23 January 2021. She asked when an updated breakdown of service charges would be provided for 2020 and 2021. The landlord did not fully explain the fluctuating level of service charges in its stage one or in its stage 2 complaint response. It missed this opportunity to provide a fuller explanation concerning the service charges or the reason why service charges were applied during lockdown. It provided “actuals for the year 2020/2021” which it stated had been provided on 21 September 2021. This would not have answered the resident’s specific queries.
Due to the landlord’s failure to answer the resident’s service charge queries more fully or provide her with an opportunity to phone or speak to a member of staff who could assist with this, there was service failure. Whilst the resident is required to pay service charges in accordance with her lease, it was reasonable for the landlord to provide further explanation. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above, compensation of £100 is appropriate in this instance for the service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to set up a residents’ committee

The resident made a request in her stage one complaint of 29 November 2021 for the landlord to agree to the setting up of a residents’ committee. The landlord responded to this request in its stage one complaint response of 7 January 2022 that it would welcome a residents’ committee. It would discuss this further during a visit. There is no further record of the landlord’s consideration of the setting up of a residents’ committee until its stage 2 response of 18 March 2022.
The landlord agreed in its stage 2 response of 18 March that it would initially set up a task and finish group. It would put an action plan together with residents and hold regular meetings. It gave a timescale of one month for the initial meeting to be held. The resident chased up the landlord on 7 July 2022 through a webchat for the initial meeting to be organised. There was delay in the landlord chasing this up internally on 28 July 2021 and in the first meeting being organised for 7 September 2022. This meant that the from the resident’s request for a residents’ committee to be established on 29 November 2021 it took 10 months for the initial meeting to be organised. This delay was unreasonable and would have caused inconvenience to the resident as she had to chase the landlord for updates.
The landlord cited the cyber-attack had impacted on its resources to set up the meeting. However, this took place sometime after the landlord’s stage 2 response of 18 March 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to update the resident if there were resource issues that were preventing it from setting up the task and finish group.
The landlord has since established the task and finish group and it has produced an action plan agreed with the residents in attendance including the resident. The action plan produced details a number of actions and a number of these are shown as completed.
There was therefore maladministration, as the landlord failed to progress the establishment of a task and finish group in a timely manner or update the resident on the reason for any delay. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above, in this instance, compensation of £300 is appropriate comprising £200 in respect of the landlord’s delay in setting up the initial meeting, and £100 for the inconvenience along with the time and trouble in the resident’s pursuit of the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation

The resident’s stage one complaint was made on 29 November 2021. The landlord phoned the resident on 7 December 2021 to discuss the complaint. The Ombudsman has not seen that a written acknowledgement was sent which would have been reasonable, though not currently within the landlord’s complaint policy. It was reasonable, however, for the landlord to phone the resident to clarify the different issues that she wished to be addressed in its complaint response.
The stage one response was sent on 7 January 2022. This was outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timescale. The Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord advised the resident of the reason for the delay in its response. When a response is delayed, it would be expected for the landlord to contact the resident to explain when she could expect a response. This was therefore a failing.
The stage one response itself did not go into all of the issues raised by the resident. This was a missed opportunity as a complaint response is an opportunity to resolve a complaint. Though it did offer for a visit to address all of the issues, it needed to give a full response as would be expected by the resident. The landlord did recognise the delay in responding and awarded £50 compensation for this, which was reasonable.
Following the resident’s complaint escalation request to stage 2 made on 23 January 2022, the landlord’s internal emails detailed that the landlord would investigate the repair issues and send a surveyor. The surveyor’s visit was arranged for 22 March 2022. This was after the landlord issued its stage 2 response of 18 March 2022.
The stage 2 complaint response was delayed as it was not sent until nearly 2 months after the escalation request was made. This was not in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy timescales. The response recognised the lack of detail in its stage one response and it apologised which was appropriate. It answered the resident’s outstanding complaint issues. It awarded £100 compensation in respect of the service failures identified.
The landlord sent a further stage 2 “addendum” response on 8 February 2023. This postdated the resident’s referral of the matter to the Ombudsman. The landlord updated on outstanding complaint issues including the task and finish group and the issues raised by the resident about the windows. In this response it had reconsidered its position and would repair the windows. It gave a further apology for the delay and for “internal miscommunication, which has resulted in further inconveniences”. It awarded a further £350 compensation for these “additional service failures”. It recognised that it had failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It also recognised that it had failed to follow its own policy and procedure and that there had been “repeat visits to resolve an outstanding problem”. The landlord’s complaints policy does not detail the approach used by the landlord in providing a further stage 2 “addendum” response. Having an extra stage in the complaints process can hinder a resident in referring a complaint to the Ombudsman. It is also not in keeping with the Complaint Handling Code which is now on a statutory footing.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s response during its complaints process, at stage one and stage 2 and whether its responses were sufficient to resolve the complaint. It is noted that the landlord made an additional offer of compensation after the end of the complaints process and that this offer was reasonable for the substantive issues raised in the complaint. However, the landlord did not offer reasonable compensation during its complaints process and only offered it after the Ombudsman’s involvement.
There was therefore maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above. The Ombudsman considers that the £150 compensation offered during the landlord’s complaints process does not sufficiently address the service failings identified in complaint handling. Compensation of £250 is appropriate in this case comprising £150 (previously offered) and a further £100 for the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident in her pursuit of her complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues around the bedroom windows and associated damage to the wall and windowsill.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the communal areas including the solar panels being defective and not value for money, and concerns about the lifespan of the water tanks and expansion vessels.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a gate to the front of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a detailed breakdown of service charges over the last 5 years due to the fluctuating level of the charges.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, for the reasons set out above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s query regarding the level of the service charge in 2020 which was higher than the estimated charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to set up a residents’ committee.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Orders

Within 5 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a director level or above for the failings identified in this investigation including the delays in tackling the resident’s reports concerning damp and mould, delays in responding to the other issues raised, its poor communication and record keeping. A copy should be sent to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould issues around the bedroom windows and associated damage to the wall and windowsill.
3. Pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the communal areas including the solar panels being defective and not value for money, and concerns about the lifespan of the water tanks and expansion vessels.
4. Pay the resident £50 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to install a gate to the front of the property.
5. Pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a detailed breakdown of service charges over the last 5 years due to the fluctuating level of the charges.
6. Pay the resident £300 compensation in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to set up a residents’ committee.
7. Pay the resident £250 compensation (including £150 previously offered at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide a detailed explanation of the resident’s service charges paying specific reference to the periods during lockdown.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to undertake a senior management review of this case. It must produce an improvement plan with specific actions by named postholders. This must be shared with its governing body and residents’ panel. A copy should be sent to this Service. This should set out as a minimum:
1. A commitment and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment of its approach to services for leaseholders, where managing agents are involved. It should use the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents.
2. A commitment and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment (if it has not already completed this) using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
3. A commitment and a timescale to review the information sent to its leaseholders when it issues service charge estimates and statements.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy and procedures, once the new Code has been published on 1 April 2024, as recommended in previous Ombudsman determinations.