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

Gateway Housing Association Limited (202117623)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117623

Gateway Housing Association Limited

21 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway and upstairs flat.
    2. The resident’s concerns about communal cleaning.
    3. The resident’s concerns about communal lighting and electricity use from her supply.
    4. The resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident lives in the property, a two-bedroom flat owned by the landlord, under a secured tenancy. There are two properties in the building and the landlord owns and manages the building. For ease of reference in this report “the property” is used for the resident’s property, and “the building” for the landlord’s property. The resident has lived in the property since 1987. She has spinal issues and uses a wheelchair.
  2. The resident has raised concerns with the landlord about the above listed issues on a number of occasions since 2016. The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 1 February 2016 confirming that it was going to commission a quote for soundproofing works to the flat above. On 1 October 2018 the resident raised the issues of the communal cleaning and lighting and the landlord acknowledged this as a complaint. However, this Service has seen no evidence a formal complaint response was issued.
  3. The resident then raised another formal complaint on 4 April 2019 about the communal cleaning as well as issues in the bin area. The landlord responded to this on 18 April 2019. It agreed to arrange a one-off clean as a goodwill gesture but said that the building was not part of its cleaning schedule. It said consultation on costs would need to be carried out. It confirmed that a rat infestation in the bin area had been dealt with and it had chased the council to get the bin replaced. It also said it would obtain a quote for the bin shed to be demolished and repaired.
  4. There is no evidence of any further contact about the noise issue until the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 16 January 2020 about noise issues and the fact that soundproofing work still had not been completed. This Service has not seen any evidence that this letter was responded to.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 10 February 2021 asking for it to organise a clean of the communal areas. She said the hallway was not cleaned properly during the one-off clean back in 2019 as the flooring needed to be replaced. She also said she had understood at the time that the landlord would provide permanent solution. The landlord responded on 4 March 2021, saying that the one-off clean was done on the understanding that the resident and her neighbour would clean it going forward. The resident asked to raise a complaint the same day.
  6. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 March 2021 and said it would respond within 10 working days, but no evidence of a response has been provided. The resident raised the complaint again on 19 May 2021, saying she had received no response previously and wanted to escalate it to stage 2. The landlord sent a stage 1 response on 4 June 2021. It said maintenance of the communal areas was the responsibility of the resident and her neighbour. It said that she should approach her neighbour about the noise issues as she may not have been aware there was a problem. It confirmed that the resident should not be paying for the electricity for the communal lighting and said it would reimburse this and look to install a landlord meter. In terms of the noise issues, it encouraged the resident to approach the neighbour about this directly.
  7. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 29 October 2021 and the landlord sent its final response on 3 December 2021. It confirmed it was working with its supplier to get a landlord meter fitted and had paid her for the energy already used. It maintained that communal cleaning was not part of her tenancy agreement, nor was it economical due to the size of the communal area. Finally, it agreed to write to the neighbour to ensure she had her washing machine adjusted to reduce the noise. It confirmed it had also fitted a heavy-duty door closer in the hallway. It apologised for the delay in responding and awarded the resident £50 for having to chase for a response and the inconvenience caused.
  8. The resident contacted this Service on 31 December 2021 and asked for her complaint to be looked into.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway and the upstairs flat

  1. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on 19 January 2016 about the problems with noise coming from the upstairs flat and hallway. The landlord responded to the MP on 1 February 2016, advising that a mediation meeting had taken place and it was agreed that the noise transmission from the upstairs flat was excessive, so it would commission a contractor to quote for soundproofing works. No further contact was made with the landlord to raise concerns about this issue until the resident’s MP wrote to it again on 16 January 2020. The MP said that insulation was supposed to be installed in 2016 and this still had not been done. Due to the amount of time that passed between the landlord saying it would commission soundproofing works and the resident’s MP chasing this up, it is limited as to what the Ombudsman can consider for investigation. However, as the resident has raised issues with insulation and noise from the upstairs flat and hallway multiple times since then, this Service will consider the landlord’s responses since 16 January 2020.
  2. No evidence has been provided that the landlord responded to the MP’s letter of January 2020. However, its repairs and maintenance records show that on 28 February 2020 it installed a door closer to the main entrance door. On 15 November 2020 soundproofing to the living room, hallway and kitchen area of the upstairs flat was completed. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that routine repairs (the category with the longest timescale) should be carried out within thirty days. Neither of these works were carried out within this timescale, and the soundproofing was not carried out until 10 months after the resident’s MP chased it up.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 and 15 May 2021 sending recordings of the noise caused by the washing machine in the upstairs flat. She said it happened multiple times a day. The landlord responded on 19 May 2021 saying that the neighbour had also experienced a slamming noise and it would get this inspected. It said it had spoken to the neighbour about the washing machine and was looking to get it resolved. The resident responded, chasing up a response to her complaint, and reiterating the problems with the noise from the communal hallway, particularly the door slamming, and the washing machine upstairs.
  4. In its stage 1 response of 4 June 2021, the landlord said that if there was a noise problem she should approach the neighbour first, as the neighbour might not have realised there was a problem. It said if she needed the landlord to get involved, she should gather evidence such as dates and times and whether other authorities were involved. This suggestion was made following a similar suggestion in March 2021 about speaking to the neighbour to discuss the communal cleaning. The resident had responded at that time saying she was shocked at the suggestion as the landlord was aware that the neighbour was cautioned for assaulting her in 2015 and they had history of ASB.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord at 01:42 on 16 October 2021 saying that she had been woken up by doors slamming every 15 minutes. She asked the landlord to install soft closers on the doors. She followed this up with an email on 29 October 2021 asking the landlord to assess the situation with noise as her radiator was rattling when the washing machine was on upstairs. The landlord responded to say soundproofing was carried out the previous year and as far as it was concerned, this was carried out satisfactorily. It said the neighbour had agreed to have someone check the washing machine.  The landlord provided no explanation for why this had not already been done, considering it had said five months earlier that it had spoken to the neighbour about the washing machine. It said it would instruct contractors to install a door closer. The resident responded to this email saying the soundproofing had improved matters somewhat, however the works did not include the communal hallway. She asked the landlord to adjust door closings on all of the flat doors so they would not slam.
  6. In its final response of 3 December 2021, the landlord said that a door closer was fitted in March 2021 to reduce banging, but upon inspection on 22 November 2021 this had been removed. It had now fitted a heavy duty closer to this door but did not mention any work to prevent other doors slamming. It said that following the sound insulation works in March 2021 it was identified that the washing machine upstairs needed adjusting. The neighbour had agreed to have this done, and the landlord had chased this up in August and again in the last week.
  7. The resident replied to the final response on 9 December 2021. She said the soft close mechanisms worked, but that the door to the flat upstairs still needed adjusting and asked when this would be done. She reminded the landlord of the past issues with the upstairs neighbour. The resident has since let this Service know on 28 February 2022 that the landlord would be commissioning works to eliminate the washing machine disturbance. From the correspondence between the resident and the landlord, it seems that the washing machine noise was unrelated to the original noise issues dating back to 2016. The washing machine was not raised as an issue by the resident until May 2021. So, it seems that the soundproofing work carried out by the landlord was effective at reducing some noise, but something changed with the washing machine that meant the noise became an issue again.
  8. This Service expects a landlord to take reports of noise problems seriously and take steps to reduce the noise caused by day-to-day living to reasonable levels. It is also expected that it takes responsibility for this rather than putting the onus on a resident to mediate with a neighbour, especially where there is a history of problems between the residents. In this case the landlord was aware of a difficult history between the resident and her neighbour, and it was not appropriate to suggest she try to discuss the problem with her. It was also unlikely that the washing machine noise could be resolved by just a discussion with the neighbour, as it was likely that work would have been required to reduce this noise. The landlord identified the problem with the washing machine and only made contact with the neighbour twice over a three-month period to try and get matters resolved. It did not make reasonable attempts to make contact with the neighbour and ensure a resolution was implemented.
  9. The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway and the upstairs flat. The landlord took too long to carry out initial soundproofing work to the upstairs flat, having agreed to complete these works in 2016. It then took too long to commission further works when the washing machine was raised as an issue. It also failed to address the resident’s request for soft closing to be added to the doors in the upstairs flat.
  10. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 to £600 for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.” Whilst the landlord did carry out soundproofing works and since the complaint was referred to this Service commissioned further works, these were not carried out in a reasonable timeframe. The events in this case indicate that a payment towards the middle of this scale is warranted and an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £300 to reflect the distress caused to her by its failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning

  1. This issue has been ongoing for a number of years, and this Service has considered whether the complaint has been brought in time. As such this service will consider the circumstances from her initial request in 2018 about the cleaning, including whether it was part of the service charge. Given the actions that are detailed below, such as a one-off clean, and an agreement to consult on cleaning costs at an annual review, it is reasonable that the resident did not immediately escalate her concerns.  Once it became clear these agreed actions did not resolve things, she then escalated the complaint. So, this Service has investigated the landlord’s actions since the resident raised concerns about the communal cleaning in October 2018.
  2. The tenancy agreement should make it clear what the landlord is and is not responsible for. The landlord has only provided page one of the tenancy agreement which does not provide a list of its responsibilities. No reason has been provided for the failure to provide the full agreement. The landlord has provided a copy of its responsive repairs policy and procedures, but these do not mention responsibility for the cleaning of communal areas. The landlord’s stage one response did however provide a breakdown of service charges, with no amount detailed for communal cleaning.
  3. This service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s cleaning concerns from October 2018. Furthermore, it told the resident on 4 April 2019 that she could not raise a formal complaint about the cleaning of the communal area as she had set a precedent by cleaning it herself for years. This was in spite of her since becoming disabled and no longer being able to carry out the cleaning herself. During this conversation the resident said she believed that the landlord was responsible for cleaning of the communal area as per the Housing Act of 2004. The landlord’s response was that this act is not retrospective and what it says in the lease would still apply. However, this Service has not seen a full copy of the occupancy agreement, so is unable to determine whether the resident is responsible for cleaning the communal area.
  4. Despite the initial refusal, the landlord did go ahead and raised a complaint at this time. In its stage one response of 18 April 2019, it said that the address was not part of its cleaning schedule and could not be added due to the additional cost to the residents. It said consultation would need to be carried out so the additional costs can be passed on to the residents as an additional service charge. It agreed a one-off clean as a goodwill gesture. There has been no evidence provided that the landlord carried out consultation before the end of the financial year to discuss including communal cleaning in the service charge.
  5. From the landlord’s records it appears the resident did not contact it again about the communal cleaning until 23 February 2021. The landlord said it had already done a one-off clean and that it could put a plan in place to keep communal areas clean, but if implemented this would be expensive. The resident said that she had no choice but to accept the expensive proposal or live with the dirt, as she could not manage it herself, and asked if it could provide a cheaper service. She explained that the one-off clean had not provided a long-term solution, in part because the clean could not be fully completed as the lino in the hallway was old and damaged, and needed to be replaced. She said this lino had been in place since 1987 when she moved in.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 19 May 2021, saying that the neighbour had agreed to clean this time and would send photos. The resident responded reiterating her complaint points as she had not yet had a response. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 4 June 2021. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 29 October 2021 and the landlord sent its final response on 3 December 2021. It said that communal cleaning was not included in the service charge and procurement would not provide value for money due to the size of the communal area. It said maintenance of the communal area was the responsibility of both residents.
  7. The resident told this Service that it was not reasonable for the landlord to ask her to set a cleaning regime with her neighbour. She said that the landlord was aware of an incident in 2015 where the neighbour was cautioned by police for assaulting her. She reminded the landlord of this incident on 5 March 2021, but the landlord still continued to insist that they should work it out between them. As the landlord knew about the history between the resident and her neighbour and the resident also reminded of it, its suggestion that they came to an agreement about cleaning was not appropriate, sympathetic and resolution focused.
  8.  Additionally, the landlord failed to address her request for the flooring to be replaced or follow up on including the property into a cleaning scheme. The resident agreed that she would accept a higher service charge as she could no longer clean the space herself, but the landlord did not start a consultation process as it suggested. This was not a customer focussed and reasonable approach.
  9. The resident considered that the cleaning was the landlord’s responsibility and therefore included in her service charge. The landlord has provided a breakdown of its service charge in its stage one response, asserting that only communal lighting is included. However, it has not provided any documentation to support this, such as a full copy of the tenancy agreement.
  10. For the above reasons, the Ombudsman has found maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint about the lack of communal cleaning. It has failed to demonstrate that it was not responsible for the cleaning of the communal area and was dismissive of the complaint at the start. The resident made it clear that she was physically unable to manage the cleaning herself, and the history between her and the neighbour meant that it was not possible for her to agree a cleaning schedule directly with her. The landlord did not take any proactive steps to mediate between the neighbours. Furthermore, it continued advising her to discuss it with the neighbour and dismissed her concerns about the historic ASB issues. The landlord did agree to a one-off clean, but then the resident reported the issues remained unresolved due to the aged lino, which allowed dirt to build back up.
  11. Whilst the landlord took steps to clean the communal hallway on a one-off basis, it did not implement anything to put things right for the resident on a more permanent basis. Additionally, it did not respond to her reports about her vulnerability and needs. An order has been made for the landlord to carry out a review of this aspect of the case, taking into consideration all relevant factors, including the resident’s concerns that she is unable to carry out any cleaning works herself. The review will refer directly to the occupancy agreement in its confirmation as to who is responsible for cleaning the communal areas and will also explore all possible options for providing a permanent solution to this issue. If necessary, the landlord should consider in the review mediating between the neighbours to assist agreement on permanent cleaning provisions or initiating a consultation process for implementing cleaning into the communal services.
  12. In addition to the order requiring the landlord to conduct a review, the landlord has also been ordered to inspect the lino flooring within the communal areas to assess whether it requires replacement. Combined, these two orders, when properly completed are considered to provide the resident with a suitable remedy for the landlord’s failures on this aspect of the case.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lighting and electricity use from her supply

  1. The landlord’s records show that the resident first raised issues with the inadequacy of the communal lighting, and her electricity being used to power the lighting that was in place on 1 October 2018. At this time the landlord did not address this issue, and the resident had to follow this up with it several times. She raised it again as part of her complaint on 4 March 2021 and sent the landlord a copy of an electricity bill on 3 May 2021 asking for reimbursement.
  2. In its stage 1 complaint response of 4 June 2021, the landlord provided a breakdown of the service charge the resident was paying, which included the upkeep of the communal lighting. It confirmed that communal electricity should not be charged to her. It said it would reimburse her for electricity and arrange for a landlord meter to be installed. It would then connect the porch lighting once a landlord meter had been installed.
  3. On 29 October 2021, in her escalation request, the resident said that electricians had been to look at the lighting but there had been no follow up or progress. In its final response, the landlord said that it was working with its supplier to get a meter installed, and the lighting would then be disconnected from her supply and connected to the new meter. It confirmed it had paid her £341.85 on 21 September 2021 to reimburse her for electricity, however it did not confirm what period this covered.
  4. The resident informed this Service on 31 December 2021 that the lights were still unconnected and that this matter was urgent due to her physical mobility. She said that there was still no porch or basement lighting, and it was difficult for her to get down the stairs to the basement on her crutches without a light.
  5. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that no lighting on shared staircases is considered an emergency repair and should be responded to within four hours and completed within 24 hours. By its own admission in its final response letter, the landlord is responsible for the upkeep of the lighting and the supply of electricity to it. The evidence provided shows that the resident raised these issues more than three years before bringing the complaint to this Service, by which time matters still had not been rectified. It is evident that the landlord failed to address the lighting issue in line with its own policy and as such did not put things right for the resident.
  6. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lighting. Whilst it said in its final response that it was in the process of having a landlord meter installed and having the porch light connected to this, as well as the existing hallway light, it had not said anything about basement lighting. It failed to take into consideration the resident’s concerns about her safety, given her limited mobility, and did not address the impact this issue had on her. She said that she had to go up and down the stairs in the dark, whilst using crutches, which was not safe. And whilst it confirmed it had reimbursed her for electricity used so far, it did not acknowledge the financial impact on her of being deprived of these funds, or the stress and inconvenience having to chase this had caused.
  7. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance provides for compensation from £100 to £600 for cases where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings “and/or made no attempt to put things right.”  Whilst the landlord did reimburse the resident for her electricity costs, it did not take action to resolve the issue of the lack of lighting in some communal areas. This made it difficult for the resident to get down the basement stairs safely. The events in this case indicate that a payment towards the middle of this scale is warranted and an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £300 to reflect the distress caused to her by its failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If this is not possible, the landlord can extend it by a further 10 days at either stage, but only with good reason. An explanation and deadline should be given to the resident. The landlord has provided a copy of its complaints process, which sets out a 10 working day response at stage 1 and a 15 working day response at stage 2, within the guidelines of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  2. The resident first complained to the landlord on 1 October 2018. It sent an acknowledgement saying it would respond by 15 October 2018. It has not provided a copy of any response that was sent to the resident at this time. So, the landlord has not been able to evidence that it responded appropriately to this complaint. The resident then raised a complaint again on 4 April 2019. As stated previously, the landlord initially told the resident that she could not raise a formal complaint about the cleaning of the communal area as she had set a precedent by cleaning it herself for years. The landlord subsequently sent an acknowledgement letter saying it would respond by 16 April 2019, and it sent this response on 18 April 2019, 12 working days after it was received. The resident did not escalate the complaint at this stage as the landlord offered some next steps, however the correspondence between her MP and the landlord shows the issues were still ongoing and the resident was actively seeking a resolution.
  3. The resident raised a complaint again with the landlord on 4 March 2021. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 March 2021 and said it would provide a response within 10 working days, however no response was sent. The resident raised it again on 19 May 2021, asking for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 due to the lack of response from the landlord. The landlord then issued a stage 1 response on 4 June 2021, 63 working days after the resident raised the complaint.
  4. The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 29 October 2021 and the landlord provided its final response on 3 December 2021, 24 working days later, with a delay of 9 working days compared to its policy provisions. However, when considering the delays at both stages, the landlord failed to adhere to its complaint policy significantly over the course of the complaint.
  5. It is evident from the timeline of complaints that the landlord failed to respond within the expected timescales at each step and did not provide updates or reasons for this. When she asked for it to be escalated at that stage, it delayed matters by issuing a stage 1 response. Additionally, it failed to address the resident’s complaint in full, and particularly the communal flooring aspect. The landlord did not handle the resident’s complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, or its complaints policy.
  6. The Ombudsman considers there was a maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It failed to address all issues as it did not address the lighting in the basement. The landlord failed to achieve a resolution throughout its internal complaints process and did not put things right for the resident regarding the noise, cleaning and lighting issues. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding, and awarded the resident £50 for her having to chase a response and the inconvenience. This offer is not considered to amount to a reasonable remedy for the failures identified with its complaints handling. As such, an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation to the resident of £250 for the failures identified with its complaints handling – to reflect the distress caused to her.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of noise from the communal hallway and upstairs flat.
    2.  Handling of the resident’s concerns of communal cleaning.
    3. Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal lighting and electricity use from her supply.
    4. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £850, made up of the following:
    1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in handling of the noise issues.
    2. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in handling of the communal lighting.
    3. £250 in recognition of the time and trouble caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures in handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against rent or service charge arrears. This compensation does not include any reimbursement for electricity, though it does include any amount already paid by the landlord in respect of the issues complained about.
  3. The landlord to inspect the door slamming issues and confirm to this Service that further soundproofing work has now been completed and that the resident’s noise issues have been responded to.
  4. The landlord to review the issues relating to the communal cleaning, culminating in a full written report to be sent to the resident (and this Service). This review to refer directly to the occupancy agreement in regards where responsibility lies for the communal cleaning of this area. The review to also consider and outline all possible options for ensuring that the communal area is cleaned on a periodic basis.
  5. The landlord to inspect the condition of the lino in the communal area and replace this if required.
  6. The landlord to confirm to the resident that the landlord’s meter has now been installed, that there is lighting in all communal areas, and that these lights are all connected to the landlord meter.
  7. The landlord to reimburse the resident for any further electricity usage since the payment it made on 21 September 2021, if it has not already done so.
  8. The landlord to provide evidence to this Service that these orders have been complied with within 28 days of this investigation report.