GreenSquareAccord Limited (202207660)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207660

GreenSquareAccord Limited

29 August 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 regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the standard of service relative to the service charges.
2. Request for a housing transfer.
3. Associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident began his tenancy at the property in June 2021, which was an assured shorthold starter tenancy. The property was let on a social/affordable rent.
The property is a one bedroom flat, located within a block.
The resident has informed that he has anxiety and agoraphobia.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, in addition to rent, the resident has to pay a fixed weekly service charge for services provided by the landlord and for the administration of those services. The services charged for include, caretaking (for communal cleaning and grounds maintenance), communal repairs and maintenance, rubbish removal and staff associated costs such as, a phone for the caretaker.

Summary of events

On 2 November 2021, the resident asked the landlord to consider rehousing him and explained that he wished to move due to various issues with anti-social behaviour (ASB) within his block. The main issues included that:
1. The block was being accessed by non-residents and drug users and dealers were loitering in the communal areas. In addition, he reported that the communal entrance doors to the block were constantly broken and that he had made a report that day about the doors.
2. There was noise disturbance at all hours of the night within the communal areas.
3. He had been informed by his neighbour that ASB issues had been ongoing in the building for the last few years. He advised that the same neighbour appeared to have moved out and he was worried who would be allocated in their place.
The following day, the landlord responded to the resident and confirmed that it was aware of the ASB issues being associated with a particular tenant in the block. It advised that it was in the process of taking legal action to address the issues and was looking to make changes to minimise the security of the block being compromised. The landlord explained that it empathised with the resident and understood his frustrations. It explained that to be considered for a transfer, it would be difficult as the criteria for a transfer was for emergency cases only. The landlord reassured that it was working with the police on the ASB issues affecting the block caused by specific individuals and encouraged the resident to report any incidents to it and the police.
On 14 December 2021, the resident followed up with the landlord and noted that the block entrance door remained broken. He also reiterated his concern about the suitability of the property for him, due to the ASB. He asked if the landlord could consider him for an intermediate rent property. That is, a property where the rent is set at up to 80% of market rent.
The landlord responded the same day, that it was waiting for an update from its repairs team about the door and it suggested the resident write to its lettings manager to see whether he could be considered for a move. Later that day, the resident wrote to the lettings manager.
The lettings team responded to the resident on 24 December 2021, explaining that the resident would need to have been a tenant for at least a year to be considered for a transfer. It agreed to discuss the resident’s options with him, including the option of intermediate rent, in the new year. In January 2022, the landlord asked the resident for areas he would prefer a move to. While in communication about this, the resident explained that the ASB issues with his block continued. The lettings manager agreed to pass the reports about the ASB issues to the neighbourhood team.
On 31 January 2022, the lettings team confirmed that it had a two bedroom flat becoming available and the resident confirmed he would be willing to view it. Before doing so, he asked if he was to decline the offer, would his existing tenancy be affected and whether he would be entitled to another offer. The landlord confirmed that his existing tenancy would not be affected if he were to decline but, he was only entitled to the one offer. The resident acknowledged this and reported that on return from work that day, he found mess on the communal stairway. He explained that on this basis, he was willing to also consider an intermediate rent property outside of his desired areas. He asked the landlord to confirm the rent and the process to apply for intermediate rent properties.
The lettings team advised in response, that it had passed the report about the condition of the communal stairs, to the neighbourhood team. The team explained that if the resident wanted the two bedroom general needs property it had offered, he would need to pay a minimum of a week’s rent at sign up. The landlord explained on the other hand, with an intermediate rent property, the resident would need to complete a housing assessment for affordability, pay a £500 deposit and a month’s rent at sign up. On receipt of this information, the resident explained that he may need to reconsider the intermediate rent option due to the associated costs. He also advised that ideally, he wanted to move somewhere he would not need to spend a significant amount of money decorating.
On 11 February 2022, the resident confirmed again, that he would view the two bedroom property the landlord had offered in January 2022. He noted if not suitable, he would surrender his tenancy and move with friends and family as his mental health was significantly impacted. The resident subsequently viewed the property and declined it.
On 7 March, following receipt of a letter from the landlord about a rent and service charge increase from April 2022, the resident submitted a formal complaint. In this, he explained that he did not consider the level of the service charges reflected the standard of the service being delivered. He specified the services he was referring to and provided his comments on them as follows:
1. Communal cleaning and grounds maintenance – He advised that this did not take place and since living at the property, he had only heard the caretaker cleaning a few times. He advised the external areas were unkept and there was broken glass at the rear. He provided an image of a volunteer who he said picked litter in the area and he provided a video of the internal hallway to show its state in recent days.
2. Staff mobile phone (caretaker) – He stated that he did not have the caretakers number, had never called or received calls from them.
3. Additional grounds maintenance – He did not know what this charge was for as the grounds were not kept.
4. Communal utilities – He advised the lighting in the foyer had been broken for several months resulting in the area being dark at night. He advised that people were also using the plugs in the communal area for personal items. He provided a picture demonstrating this.
5. Door entry – He advised that the doors were always broken and after being repaired, were broken again. He mentioned that when he moved in, his intercom did not work and had to be reported and he was aware others’ in the block intercoms did not work.
6. Lighting – He reiterated that the communal light did not work.
7. Rubbish removal – He advised that there was no rubbish removal at the block and the litter picking was done by a volunteer.
8. Communal repairs and maintenance – The resident stated that the doors and lights were broken in the communal area. In addition, he stated that the floor was grey and the building smelt.
The resident said that in addition to the service delivered, there were ongoing issues with ASB in the block. He advised that he had been told the previous week that the landlord was looking to replace the door release method and introduce CCTV but could not do this until the new financial year. The resident advised that by his calculations, he should be charged £19.78 per year and not the £53.56 a month the landlord was charging, as he considered that he was getting less than half of the service.
The resident also complained about the service he received from lettings team. He advised he felt that the staff member in recent communication, appeared disinterested compared to previously. He said that the two bedroom property he was offered and had declined, was in a poor condition. He acknowledged the landlord offered one property but questioned whether it made sense to offer one property before removing him off the transfer list and back to the block with ASB. The resident reported that he wrote the complaint, ASB issues were ongoing.
This Service is aware that following the submission of the complaint, the resident sent emails to the landlord between 7 and 25 March 2022. We have not had sight of these emails therefore, the content of them is unknown.
The parties spoke on 22 April 2022 and discussed the resident’s complaint. This service has also not seen the notes from this conversation.
On or around 6 May 2022, the resident was asked if he wanted to apply for an intermediate rent property that had become available. He notified the complaints team of this, on 6 May 2022. He advised the complaints team that he did not want to commit to applying for the property and paying the associated costs for it, if an outcome from the complaint could be that the property was offered without him having to do so.
The landlord confirmed on 9 May 2022, that the upfront payment would need to be paid if the resident wanted the property. The landlord also informed that the complaint response date, had been extended from 4 May to 11 May 2022.
The landlord responded at stage two of its complaints procedure, on 10 May 2022. It responded to the residents comments about the services delivered as follows:
1. For the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance, it confirmed that this was completed weekly and the broken glass mentioned had not been found. It also said that it had received positive feedback recently about the cleaning. It said however, that it was aware the block became messy soon after being cleaned and it was looking into the cause of this and taking action. It advised the resident to contact it if he found mess in the communal area.
2. The caretakers phone was for staff use only and used by its central office, to contact the caretaker. It confirmed all the resident’s reports should go through its central contact number.
3. The additional ground maintenance was for any seasonal ground works provided and any ad hoc service cleaning required.
4. Regarding the communal utilities and lighting, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s points about this. It advised that its records showed that the communal lighting had last been reported and fixed in September 2021. It advised given the complaint indicating otherwise, a new repair was raised and would be attended to that day. The landlord confirmed its awareness of the communal electric being used for personal items and advised it had logged images the resident sent, as evidence. It said that due to data protection it could not provide further information but it reassured that it was looking resolving this and would keep the resident updated. It concluded that it was satisfied the communal maintenance was overseen on a weekly basis and that its repairs team had attended to repairs reported within timeframes.
5. In relation to the door entry, the landlord confirmed that following a report on 19 January 2022, the door was repaired on 7 February 2022 before being reported broken again on 14 February 2022. It advised that it attended to this, on 16 February 2022 and replaced the emergency release glass. The landlord confirmed that there was an outstanding repair to the communal rear door lock and it was chasing the parts on this. It agreed to provide an update on this repair by 19 May 2022. In addition, it said that it was looking into what steps it could take to address the continuous damage to the door. In respect of the funding of the work, it said that charge for the door entry covered the cost of the intercom system which it was satisfied was working. It confirmed that the repairs to the doors were covered by its repair budget.
6. Regarding the communal repairs, it said that it was satisfied that communal repairs had been attended within published timeframes. It also said that it was satisfied the communal maintenance was attended to weekly.
In the response, the landlord acknowledged that it had not responded to emails the resident had sent it between 7 and 25 March 2022. It apologised for this and said this had been fed back to the managers of the team. It advised that in future, it would try and provide email responses within its 48 hour timeframe. In response to the complaint about the service from the lettings team, the landlord apologised for how the resident felt and said it had passed his feedback about the staff member to the team. It reiterated that customers were made one offer of a property and for this reason, it could not explore further options. It advised that although the offer was refused, the resident remained on the transfer register but his application was on hold until further notice, as the lettings team were under instruction to consider emergency cases only. It recognised that in addition to the property offered, the resident was also offered to apply for an intermediate property. The landlord concluded that it was satisfied that its lettings team offered the resident a suitable property and an intermediate property. It confirmed that if the resident wanted to pursue the intermediate rent property, to send an application as soon as possible. The landlord advised the resident to report any ASB issues to the housing officer or to its contact centre. The landlord confirmed that the complaint was partially upheld, due to the finding that it had not responded to his emails in March 2022.
The resident responded with an escalation request, on 19 May 2022. He disagreed with the landlord’s findings of a satisfactory service for the communal cleaning and communal repair. He reiterated that the lighting had not been working for several months and questioned why on visiting, the landlord’s staff had not noticed. He also advised that the door entry was reported in February and there was still work outstanding to both the front and rear doors. He questioned again, why staff had not reported this and why the doors had not been repaired. The resident also questioned if the landlord had spoken with other residents to confirm that all the things it said took place, actually did. The resident acknowledged being on the transfer list but stated that it was unfortunate that mental health was not considered a priority. The resident advised that when speaking about the complaint, the officer understood on the phone that he should not be pressured into accepting a property where there were financial implications going to a larger property, but there was no mention of this in the response. He also said that the landlord’s offer to him to apply for the intermediate rent property, was not a guarantee that he would get it.
The landlord provided a final stage three response on 20 May 2022. It upheld the findings from the stage two response however, agreed that the response at stage two could have been more empathetic. It advised it had discussed this with the investigating officer. It provided confirmation of the actions it had completed since it provided its stage two response, which included a visit to the block on 19 May 2022. It confirmed from this visit, the cleaning and grounds maintenance was found to be satisfactory. It confirmed that before and after photographs had been taken and would be a practice it was adopting going forward, so that there was record of the work carried out. In addition, it said that communal socket was isolated on 18 May 2022, to prevent it being used by persons other than the landlord staff. It said that the communal light was attended to on 10 May 2022 and the electrician confirmed the lights were now working. It advised fault to the light was not noticed by its staff, as they generally visited in daylight hours and so it would not have been obvious to them.
The landlord advised that the neighbourhood manager wanted to meet with the resident on 24 May 2022, so that they could update him on the issues being worked on. It asked the resident to let it know if the date was suitable and whether he preferred a call or visit.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 13 July 2022. In this, the resident explained that the doors remained broken, that the standard of the cleaning remained an issue and that the communal electricity was still being used by residents.
On 28 May 2023, the resident contacted this Service and informed that his property was burgled while he was on holiday and that he has since moved out of the property as a result. This Service requested further details about the incident and an update on the status of the residents tenancy with the landlord, but we have not received this information. The resident has also not confirmed to this Service whether or not, he has formally ended his tenancy.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident’s complaint concerning the service charges levied, is that he does not consider the service delivered reflects the charges. The Ombudsman, in accordance with the Scheme by which we operate, cannot consider complaints concerning the level of charges. Therefore, we can not assess or determine whether or not, the charges themselves are reasonable or not. In this investigation, we have considered how the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns about the services delivered.

Policies

The landlord’s rent and service charge policy, which does not apply to properties sold on either long leases or on a shared ownership basis, confirms that it operates fixed service charges. The policy confirms that there is no direct right of appeal to the landlord about any proposed rent (including service charge where it applies). If a customer does have an issue, they may direct these to the landlord.
The landlord’s mutual exchange and transfer policy, explains that existing customers are entitled to apply for a transfer to another property within its stock. It confirms that applicants will be made one offer of a suitable property.
Under this policy, if a resident with a starter tenancy which has not reached its end date (12 months after the start of the tenancy), wishes to transfer, the landlord will only except an application if there are exceptional circumstances including severe harassment or ASB from neighbours or a serious and deteriorating medical condition.

The landlord’s response to the concerns about the standard of service relative to the service charges.

In the complaint, the resident raised specific concerns regarding the standard of the communal maintenance and repairs. This Service has seen that on 9 May 2022, the landlord made enquiries to the relevant estate teams regarding the cleaning and maintenance work being carried out to the block. When making enquiries, it raised the specific issues the resident mentioned with the state of the block when he complained in March 2022.
From its investigation, it received confirmation that the cleaning to the block was completed fortnightly and this service has been provided with a cleaner’s record sheet, dated between September 2021 and March 2022, which shows fortnightly visits. The landlord’s received confirmation at the time of those enquiries, that the block had been cleaned within the last seven days and there were known issues with the block being messed up within days of being cleaned. The landlord was also notified that its caretaking staff were not aware of an issue with the communal light.
The landlord relayed the findings from its investigation to the resident, and its finding that the cleaning was carried out satisfactorily, has been supported by the feedback it received from the enquiries it made in its investigation. In addition to this, the landlord following the complaint, also carried out an unannounced visit to the block on 19 May 2022. This visit confirmed the landlord’s conclusions that while cleaning was carried out, it was clear that there were issues with the block not being looked after by some residents. As a result of the findings from the visit, it was agreed that going forward, the caretaker would take photos. This was a reasonable action in the circumstances as taking photos would provide the landlord with further evidence of the work carried out by its staff and the condition of the block in between the visits. It could then use this to assess whether there is a need to change the frequency or specification of the cleaning carried out.
This service has noted that in the response to the complaint, the landlord stated that the cleaning was completed on a weekly basis despite it being notified it was in fact done fortnightly. This was also not picked up within its stage two investigation. This is a failure, as the landlord relayed incorrect information about the frequency of the cleaning.
The landlord concluded that it attended to the communal repairs within its timeframes. Its repair records support its account of the repairs carried out to the communal entrance doors between January and February 2022, but the outstanding repair it noted to the rear back communal door is not within the records and it is unclear how long that repair had been outstanding for. It agreed to provide the resident on the outstanding repair to the rear door lock, by 19 May 2022 but there is no indication that it did. Within the resident’s escalation request, he highlighted that the front entrance door was also not repaired but no repair was raised for this thereafter. An update on the status of the communal door repairs, was also not provided within the final response.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide timeframes within which it is expected to complete non-emergency repairs therefore it is not clear what timeframes the landlord is referring to when making this conclusion that it attended to repairs within timeframes.
The landlord appropriately recognised that the door repairs were frequently required and that it was taking steps to stop the recurring damage to the doors from happening. This service has seen records that show it obtained quotes for the introduction of a new door access system and CCTV in February 2022 although it is not clear what the outcome of this was.
In relation to the communal lighting, the landlord took the appropriate action to raise the repair however, the time it took to do so was unreasonable. It took more than two months from when the complaint was raised, to raise the repair which resulted in the delay in it being addressed. This was unreasonable considering the resident had mentioned that the communal area was in darkness as a result of the light not working. The landlord has not recognised the delay in either response to the complaint.
With the misuse of the communal utilities, that is the communal plug, the landlord acted on the evidence it received from the resident and its own staff regarding this and isolated the socket. This was the appropriate action to take to prevent further use of the communal socket.
In the response to the complaint, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that there were ASB issues and provided the resident advise on how to report this. There is evidence that the landlord was, as noted in the complaint, investigating and acting against the suspected perpetrator of ASB within the block. The resident’s reports about the ASB occurrences to the lettings team were also sent to the relevant team to address.
In the complaint response, the landlord also offered to meet the resident to discuss the actions it was taking in relation to the ASB matters within the block. the resident did not respond to the landlord regarding this and this service can see that the landlord tried to follow up with the resident to meet. As the landlord was taking actions to address the ASB, it may have considered writing to the resident as an alternative in order to provide him with regular updates on the progress of its investigations into the ASB, this Service however, has not seen that it has done so.
The landlord’s provided explanations to clarify what service, each charge is for. It completed thorough investigations with the relevant team regarding the maintenance of the communal areas and its findings about the standard of service are supported by its findings. But the landlord provided incorrect information to the resident about the frequency of the service. The landlord also arranged for the communal light to be repaired but did not recognise the time taken to raise the repair after the complaint was submitted. It also did not provide the resident with an update on the rear door repair after promising to, and it did not act on the repair report about the front and rear communal doors after the resident stated there were repairs outstanding in his escalation request.

Response to the resident’s request for a transfer

When the resident requested a transfer initially, his reasons were due to the ongoing ASB issues within the block. At the time the request was made, the landlord sought to manage expectations and explained that a transfer may be difficult due to the criteria being for emergencies only. The landlord has not provided the guidelines which set out its criteria for a transfer to this service however, it is known that internal transfer requests such as that requested by the resident, are usually offered when a tenant is required to move for major works or, if the resident needs to move urgently due to being a victim of severe ASB in the form of threats of violence and intimidation, for example. So, the landlord’s initial advice likely reflected its guidance on the criteria for a transfer.
The landlord acknowledged the ASB issues the resident referenced and provided reassurance that it was aware of this and taking action regarding this. Following further reports from the resident, it directed the resident to its lettings team to ask it to consider the transfer request.
When the resident approached the lettings team, he was still within the first 12 months of his tenancy and therefore not entitled to a transfer under the landlord’s policy. However, the lettings team applied its discretion which was reasonable for it to do as it was aware of the ASB issues being complained about, and it offered the resident the two bedroom property.
It is noted that the landlord had offered the resident a two bedroom, as opposed to a one bedroom, and the resident understandably, raised questions about the rent charges for the property offered. The landlord provided the information prior to the viewing, which was appropriate to inform the resident’s decision to view the property.
The resident explained before viewing that he had spent a considerable amount already decorating his flat and therefore, did not want to have to do the same if he moved. Unfortunately, when viewing the two bedroom property offered, he found it was not in a suitable condition and therefore declined it.
It is understandable that the resident was disappointed that the landlord would not offer him another property however, this was in line with its policy. The landlord also gave the resident information about intermediate rent properties, which was a way for the resident to move elsewhere. Although, we have noted that the resident was not in a position to consider this due to the associated costs.
The resident stated in his complaint, that the communication from the lettings manager had changed in tone and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for this and pass this onto the team.
The landlord advised in the complaint response, that the resident’s transfer application was on hold and the explanation it provided as to why was reasonable given the limited availability of social housing. Although, to better manage the resident’s expectations, the landlord could have given the resident advice or guidance about how he could obtain information to support his application for a move, if he felt this was required on an emergency basis. This particularly because the resident in his correspondence, had indicated that his mental health issues were being exacerbated by the ASB within the block.
It is unclear whether the resident’s transfer application has since been resumed or if the resident has ended his tenancy with the landlord. Given this, a recommendation has been made in relation to the resident’s transfer application, in the event he is still a resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has three stages within its complaints process as follows:
1. Step 1 – At this stage it will speak with the customer to try and resolve the issue within two working days.
2. Step 2 – Within 10 working days, its customer care team will investigate the complaint.
3. Step 3 – Within 10 working days, it will review the complaint to see whether it has been handled fairly and reasonably.
There is no evidence that the resident’s complaint was ever considered at stage one and no explanation or apology has been provided to the resident for this.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the code), published in July 2020 and revised in March 2022, explains that a complaint must be acknowledged within 5 working days and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure. In this case, the this did not happen and the resident did not receive any contact from the landlord about the complaint until more than a month later.
When it spoke with the resident about the complaint on 22 April 2023, it is not clear at what stage it considered the complaint to be at and there is no record of what it discussed. At the time the conversation took place, it had been35 working days since the complaint was submitted.
The resident was then provided with a stage two response on 10 May 2022, a total 45 working days after the complaint was submitted. When the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord was prompt to action this and provided a response the following day.
As a result of the delay in the landlord acknowledging the complaint, it issued its complaint response several weeks after the timescales set out in its policy. This also resulted in actions to address the issues in the complaint, such as the repair to the communal light, remaining outstanding for an unreasonable amount of time. The landlord has failed to offer the resident any apology or redress, for the delay itself or the impact of the delay.
An award of compensation has been ordered below in recognition of the delay in the landlord addressing the complaint and its failure to properly consider the complaint in accordance with its complaints procedure.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint on the basis that the emails the resident sent to it in March 2022, were not responded to. It is unclear whether those emails were following up on the complaint but despite recognising that it did not respond to three emails from the resident, the landlord did not offer any redress for the resident’s time and trouble and this was inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the concerns about the standard of service relative to the service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord provided an explanation as to why it was charging for the various services, when the resident questioned this. But it gave incorrect information in its response about the frequency of the cleaning taking place to the block. It also did not keep the resident updated on the repair to the communal rear door, even though it promised to, in its initial response to the complaint. The landlord also did not acknowledge the resident’s report that repairs remained outstanding to both communal doors. After it found, the resident would not agree to meeting with it for updates on the actions it was taking to address the ASB, the landlord did not seek alternative ways to update him, such as in writing. Doing so, would have been appropriate to provide the resident with reassurance that it was taking action to address the ASB.
The landlord acted in accordance with its transfer policy, in response to the resident’s request for a transfer.
There was a delay in the landlord responding to the complaint and it has not offered any explanation for this or, a reason why it did not fully consider the resident’s complaint at all stages of its complaints procedure. It also did not offer any redress to resident for a service failure it identified during its investigation.

Orders

It is ordered that within four weeks of this report, the landlord pays the resident £350 comprising:
1. £200 for the maladministration found in its response to the concerns about the standard of service relative to the service charges.
2. £150 for the maladministration found in the complaint’s handling.

Recommendations

If the resident still holds their tenancy for the property, it is recommended that the landlord contact him to provide guidance on how he can pursue a move. It should also include relevant advice about what documentation, if any, the resident could provide it in support of his request for a move.