Eastlight Community Homes Limited (202209342)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209342

Eastlight Community Homes Limited

31 January 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 communication with the resident about the property at the start of the tenancy, including providing inaccurate information about the size of her garden.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair and other issues at the property.
The complaint is also about the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s communication.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports relating to further scaffolding, the condition of the bathroom, the gardening service, a lice infestation and a request to fit a garden gate.
The Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Scheme says that, “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman considers that the complaint concerning the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports relating to a report about further scaffolding, the condition of the bathroom, the gardening service, a lice infestation and a request to fit a garden gate is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Those issues appear to have been raised as service requests and there is evidence of discussions with the landlord about actions to be taken. However, the issues do not appear to have been the subject of a formal complaint to the landlord and do not appear to have been responded to as part of a formal complaint. There is therefore no evidence that these issues have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and therefore this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident’s remaining complaints about the landlord’s communications with her about the property at the start of the tenancy, including providing inaccurate information about the size of her garden, the landlord’s response to the issues about the doors, garden clearance, communication and the landlord’s complaints handling are investigated below.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy agreement with the landlord. She moved into the property, which is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, with her children, in April 2022. The landlord said it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident but she has told us that she has a debilitating condition caused by a liver condition.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord also confirms this obligation.
The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. It says it will respond to an emergency within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 28 days.
Further, it requires the resident to keep the property gardens in a properly cultivated and tidy condition.
The landlord’s Complaints and Resolutions Policy, created in February 2022, is a 2-stage process. It says it will respond within 10 working days at stage 1 of its process and if the customer is unhappy with the outcome of stage 1, it will review at its appeal stage, apart from in certain circumstances. It says the stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days of the appeal date. It says it can offer discretionary payments and/or gestures of goodwill.
The landlord’s compensation policy, dated February 2021, sets out that it considers residents have the right to compensation in some circumstances. These are in situations where it considers there is evidence of clear financial loss for which the landlord is liable.
On 30 May 2022 the resident called the landlord saying that she had been told her front and back doors would be replaced when she moved in. However, this had not happened. The landlord’s call operative noted on the system that it did not appear the doors were due to be replaced until 2025 but said the resident had reported she was having problems with the front door because of an issue with the lock and lice entering through the door when it rained. The operative asked internally when the doors were due to be replaced. He was told to raise a repair but it was noted that the doors were in a conservation area so could not be replaced without planning permission.
On 23 June 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about a number of issues at the property. The copy provided by the landlord of the resident’s original complaint was not clear. However, in its response to her complaint the landlord set out the resident’s main issues as being:
1. The landlord’s miscommunication at the point of signing her tenancy agreement on 4 April 2022, specifically around the boundary and size of the rear garden.
2. The landlord’s miscommunication around the front door of the property being renewed/repaired.
3. Scaffolding being left at the property for an unreasonable length of time after works had been completed.
4. Miscommunication around her ability to move from the property.
5. Concerns about landlord staff members being connected to a neighbour.
6. Concerns about the way a member of staff had spoken to the resident in a recent telephone call.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on the same day and informed her it would respond by 7 July 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 29 June 2022. It fully upheld her complaint.
It accepted that the landlord had misinformed the resident about the size of the garden at the point of sign up. It said this was not done intentionally but she had been given the wrong information. It said it would, going forward, maintain the garden for her with no costs to be incurred by the resident. It also said it would reimburse her for any costs already incurred.
It accepted it had not been clear with the resident about the process for repairing the front door. It explained that the property was in a conservation area and there were certain processes it had to follow which could sometimes take 6 months. It apologised that she had not been kept informed of this and said it would be update her with timescales.
It apologised for the delay in removing scaffolding from the property and confirmed that this had now been completed.
It said that there were now no restrictions on the resident moving within the first 12 months of her tenancy.
It apologised if the resident felt that a recent call she had with a member of staff did not meet the level of customer service expected.
In relation to the resident’s concerns about the neighbouring property’s occupants having connections with landlord staff and this meaning they had access to internal information; it said this matter would be investigated. However, it said that because of data protection legislation, it would be limited as to what it could share with her.
It said it wanted to put things right and offered the resident £100 as a gesture of good will and an apology for not providing her with the expected level of service.
It said it had made some changes to its sign-up process to ensure leases and boundaries were factually accurate when communicating with customers. It also said it had put into place other steps to improve its communication.
It said it had arranged for a slider lock on the front door to be relocated.
The resident said the landlord’s operatives attended the next day to fit the lock but as she was unaware of the appointment she was not there to let them in. She arranged for the landlord to return the next day but it did not return. She said this had still not been remedied by 9 August 2022. The landlord’s records show that the door repair was arranged for 9 September 2022 but the resident was unavailable. She had warned the landlord before that this would be the case as she was working. The landlord had rebooked the repair for 21 December 2022. The resident asked to try and find an earlier date and it was rearranged for 25 October 2022. The resident says she eventually put the lock on herself as she was worried that her child could open the door.
On 8 July 2022 the resident responded, saying she was dissatisfied with the response. She said that she felt like a “glorified receptionist” for the landlord. She said the scaffolding and garden had been cleared and all members of the landlord staff had been “lovely”. However, she was still having to send messages or answer the door to landlord employees without appointments. She said the garden, while cleared, needed turf at the bottom of it. She said she would not have accepted the property if she had known of this as she could not afford the equipment needed to remove the stumps and old concrete paving. She said the situation had left her with anxiety and sleepless nights.
She remained concerned about a neighbour having connections with landlord staff and when she thought she had an issue with her electricity she felt panicked in case the operative that attended might be connected to her neighbour. She therefore messaged her housing coordinator who she said told her she could refuse to let members of staff into her home although this would hold things up.
She also complained that she had had issues with the payment system for her rent.
On 9 July 2022 the resident responded to some communications from the landlord about the boundary of the property garden. She said she hadn’t been given plans to the property and the plans provided by the owner showed a communal path at the front of the property. She said this was different to the understanding she had about the area from the council.
The landlord responded on 12 July 2022. It said that it understood her concerns, especially given the layout of neighbouring properties. However, it could not provide a copy of the conveyance map. It explained that it could not change the layout of the land in front of the properties. That was because it was a conservation area and in order to do so it would have to make a planning application to the council. The resident responded that until she could see the plans for the property, she did not want any fencing put in place. She said if the landlord put the fence in the wrong place it would be hard to put that right.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord responded that the resident was free to request a copy of the conveyance map from the Land Registry. However, it said that it had taken a view of the information on its records and was satisfied with the view it had taken about where the fencing should be at the property. It said that as the landlord is the proprietor of the property, it had the right to establish the boundaries “anywhere inside of our land”. It said it was its responsibility to “ensure correctness” and how that might impact neighbouring properties. It provided fencing maps and asked that the resident might be available when an appointment was made so that she could decide where she would like a gate to be fitted. It said it would wait to hear back from the resident and reminded her that if she wanted to reschedule the fencing appointment, there could be a long delay in arranging an appointment again because of the high demand on its fencing team.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 July 2022 asking her if she would like to speak about her complaint over the phone. It said that alternatively, it would escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. The resident spoke to the landlord over the phone and also decided to escalate.
A note made on the landlord’s systems on this date said that the resident was unhappy that her issue with the boundary of the garden was not included in the complaint. It was recorded that she considered no one would talk to her about the boundary and that she could not get a plan of the garden boundary from the landlord. She said she did not trust the landlord and she dreaded coming home. She said doctors were looking to put her on anti-depressants as a consequence.
The stage 2 response, provided on 29 July 2022 repeated the actions the landlord had said it would undertake in its stage 1 response and confirmed, among other things, its commitment to placing the resident on the supported garden maintenance scheme. It said it would arrange for its income advisor to support the resident with the rent paying process.
While the response noted that one of the issues the resident had raised was that the resident wanted turf and the removal of stumps at the end of the property’s garden, it did not respond to this element of the complaint.
The resident says that although the landlord had signed her up to its garden service, when a gardener had arrived on 2 August 2022, he said that at that time of year, they would not trim the hedges and only cut the grass. She said she had therefore still had to pay for the hedges to be cut 3 times since moving in.
She said the landlord offered to pay for the first gardening session but this wouldn’t help her in the long term.
On 9 August 2022 the resident took her complaint to the Ombudsman.
Upon receiving the resident’s complaint, we made some enquiries with the local council’s planning portal to check on the progression of the application to replace the resident’s front and back door in a conservation area.
We noted that the application to replace the doors was made on 4 April 2023. The application was approved on 30 May 2023. At the time of writing this report, the resident informed the Service that neither door had been replaced.

Assessment and findings

On the complaint about the landlord’s communication with the resident about the property, including providing inaccurate information about the size of the garden.

At stage 1 of the landlord’s process, the landlord fully upheld the issues complained about by the resident. In relation to the size of the garden issue the resident says that the steps it took to make this right were ultimately unhelpful as the landlord’s gardening service does not always trim the hedges or address issues in the garden in the way she thinks would be effective.
However, the landlord’s actions were reasonable. It showed it had learnt from its error by accepting it had made a mistake when informing the resident about the size of the garden. It said it would reimburse her for any costs expended and, putting things right for her, it promised to pay for gardening going forward.
Ordinarily, the resident would be, in accordance with the terms of the tenancy, obliged to maintain the garden. As the landlord accepted she had been given inaccurate information about the size of the garden the landlord acted fairly, stepping in and accepting that responsibility. The resident is concerned that if the landlord does not attend to the garden properly, she may be blamed. This should not happen now that the landlord has accepted responsibility for the maintenance of the garden.
Having relieved the resident of that responsibility, it was not obliged to provide the type of gardening service the resident would prefer, but to maintain the garden in a reasonable way. It said that it would pay any costs she had incurred for gardening. If the resident considers she has had to spend more on the garden, she should liaise with the landlord to explain why she considers the service it provided is not sufficient. While the resident has informed the Ombudsman that she does not consider the gardening service sufficient, there is no evidence that at the time of coming to the Ombudsman, she had specifically informed the landlord of this. On the face of it, the landlord’s response to her complaint appears to have been reasonable at the time and its offer of £100, along with its offer to take on the responsibility of the property’s garden and acknowledgement of failed communications, represented reasonable redress in regards to these elements of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord also said that it made some changes to its sign-up process to ensure leases and boundaries were factually accurate when communicating with customers. It is noteworthy that although the landlord did not specifically address the boundary issue in its stage 2 complaint response, the resident was, around the time of her complaint, in communication with the landlord about her boundary issues. She had also contacted the landlord to say that she was disappointed the boundary issue had not been addressed in its stage 1 complaint response. While the landlord did then respond to the resident’s issues about the boundary concerns, it did so outside of the complaints process. We will say more about this in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling below. However, the landlord’s responses to the resident, that it was its responsibility to make decisions about the correctness or not of any drawn boundary line was reasonable. The resident was concerned that the landlord might make a mistake and concerned about how this might impact on her relationship with her neighbour. That is understandable, but it was not unreasonable of the landlord to take on the responsibility for ensuring the boundary was placed in the right place.
However, as the resident remains concerned about the boundary issue we consider it would be helpful for the resolution of all the issues connected to her garden space and in line with the landlord’s commitment to be clearer around the information it provides in relation to boundaries, to make a recommendation that the landlord engage again with the resident to provide clarity around the resident’s garden’s boundaries.

On the landlord’s response to resident’s reports of repair and other issues at the property

The landlord acknowledged, at stage 1, that it had miscommunicated with the resident about the size of the garden (as set out above) and about when her front door would be fixed.
Firstly, in relation to the issue with the property door lock, it appears the landlord made efforts to fix the door lock after the stage 1 response. It is understandable that there may have been communication issues and the landlord was not able to make that repair at first attempt. However, the resident said the lock had still not been fixed by 9 August 2022 when she took the complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord’s records show an appointment was arranged for 25 October 2022. This is almost 3 months after the initial attempt to fix the lock. The landlord’s policy says that it will complete repairs in 28 days. This planned repair was for 149 days after the resident raised her first report about the lock. This is 121 days late. Given the resident’s concerns about the safety of her child, who she said could open the door, the landlord should have ensured it acted quicker. The resident said that she was so concerned she arranged to fix the lock herself. This is a failing by the landlord and we have ordered the landlord make the resident a payment to acknowledge that she should not have had to do that.
The landlord also failed to replace the front and back door within its policy timeframe. It is correct that as the property is in a conservation area any replacements would take longer than usual. The landlord apologised for its failings in communication around that issue. However, the Service does not consider the apology to have been sufficient remedy for the delay in this case. The reason is that the local council’s planning portal says the planning application to replace the front and rear door at the property was not made until 4 April 2023. While we appreciate that it may take some time to prepare a planning application, the resident had been asking about the replacements from 30 May 2022. In June 2022 she was told the process could take 6 months. It took almost 10 months from that point before the planning application was made, which is an unreasonable delay. The local council’s planning portal says the application to replace the front and back door was approved on 30 May 2023.
The above delays and were so prolonged and the evidence of communications with the resident about the delays so minimal, that in relation to these issues taken together, we have made a finding of maladministration.
In relation to the garden clearance, although the landlord noted the resident’s continued concern about the stumps and concrete paving at the bottom of her garden, it did not respond to this issue in its complaint responses. It is therefore unclear if the landlord considers it has a responsibility to undertake this work or not. This has been addressed below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling.
By the time the landlord had responded at stage 1, it had removed the scaffolding the resident was concerned about in her initial complaint, which is again, sufficient remedy. As set out above, the resident later complained about issues with further scaffolding at the property in August 2022, but that concern was raised after the issues that form the focus of this complaint and we have therefore not looked at that in this investigation.

The resident’s concerns about the landlord’s communication

In relation to the concerns the resident had around landlord staff having connections with neighbouring properties, the landlord’s response was appropriate. The Service appreciates that the resident did not want the landlord to reveal anyone’s identity and that she was only concerned about a conflict of interest. However, the landlord informed the resident it was going to investigate the situation and it is difficult to see how the landlord could do more than that in the circumstances.
With respect to the telephone call with a member of the landlord’s staff that the resident considered to be rude, the landlord’s response could have taken further steps to address the resident’s concerns, such as attempting to listen to the call the resident was complaining about. This amounts to service failure. We have ordered that the landlord should make a payment to the resident to acknowledge it should have done more to investigate this concern. However, because of the passage of time it would not make sense for the Ombudsman to make any further orders in this regard.

On the landlord’s complaint’s handling

The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints were within the timeframes set out in its policy. It accepted responsibility where it considered it necessary. However, as set out above, it failed to address some of the resident’s complaint points in its stage 2 response. These were the resident’s concerns about garden clearance and about concerns in relation to the resident’s boundary.
We have made an order that the landlord should clearly express what it considers its responsibility to be in line with the tenancy agreement and in line with any policy it has about its gardening service. If it accepts that it has a responsibility to attend to the garden clearance it should address this issue within a reasonable time. If it does not consider it is responsible, it should clearly explain why.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the boundary of the property garden within its complaint’s process. During the course of the complaints process the resident had expressed that she was concerned with both the garden size and boundary and so it would have been appropriate to address that issue under the complaints process. We understand that the issue has still not been resolved. If it had been incorporated into the complaint’s process, it might have made it easier to keep track of the resident’s concerns and to work towards resolution, rather than allow the issue to drift without being addressed. This is particularly the case because the resident was and remains anxious about the issue.
The landlord’s failure to address these parts of the resident’s complaint is a service failure. It left the resident feeling her concerns had not been properly examined. We have made a further order requiring the landlord to acknowledge this failing in its complaint handling by making a payment to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, in relation to the landlord’s communication with the resident about the property at the start of the tenancy, including providing inaccurate information about the size of her garden, there was reasonable redress made by the landlord that resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair and other issues at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to the resident’s concerns about its communications.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord provided the resident with some misinformation about the size of her garden. We consider it has remedied the issue regarding the misinformation about the size of the garden by offering to take on the resident’s gardening responsibilities.
The landlord delayed taking action to fix the resident’s door lock to the point where she felt she had to make the repair herself. It explained that there would be a delay replacing the property’s doors because of the necessity of making a planning application. This would have been a satisfactory response if the landlord had not delayed 10 months before making that application. The resident says that despite the planning application being approved, 8 months on, the doors have still not been replaced.
The landlord failed to demonstrate that it had fully investigated the resident’s complaint about a call the resident had with a member of staff.
The landlord failed to address some of the resident’s complaints within the framework of its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700, comprising:
1. £500 to acknowledge its failure to replace her front and back door in a reasonable period of time.
2. £50 to acknowledge its failure to repair the property door lock within an appropriate period of time in line with its policy.
3. £50 to acknowledge its failure to demonstrate it had fully investigated the resident’s concerns about a call she had with a member of landlord staff.
4. £100 to the resident to acknowledge its failure to address all her complaint points in its stage 2 response.
If the landlord has not, by the date of this determination, replaced the resident’s front and back door, it should, within 4 weeks, make an appointment with the resident to arrange the replacements. It should set out a reasonable timeframe, which it should provide to both the resident and the Ombudsman, for when the works will be completed.
Also, within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Amend its records for the resident to include any vulnerabilities she wishes to report.

Recommendations

The landlord should engage again with the resident about the issue concerning the boundary in the property’s garden, setting out clearly where the property garden boundary lines are.
The landlord should engage with the resident about any other issues she has with the property, providing her with an action plan for any remaining works that it agrees are necessary at the property.