Home Group Limited (201915810)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915810

Home Group Limited

23 December 2020

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 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 response to the resident’s reports about:

The standard of ground maintenance;
The standard of communal cleaning;
The request for an upgrade to the communal aerial;
The request for an upgrade of the intercom system;
The request for works to the external fencing;
Lighting in the property;
Outstanding repair to fire door.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: lighting in the property. Paragraph 39 a states:

“39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: a. are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”.

The evidence suggests that the resident reported issues with the lighting in general at the property in October 2019 and this was checked by the housing officer in an inspection. When the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns on 15 October 2019 and responded to the complaint at stage 1 on 28 October, it did not address this issue. Subsequently, when the resident escalated the complaint on 28 October 2019, she did not raise this issue. Therefore, the evidence suggests that that this has not been subject to a formal review within the landlord’s internal complaint procedure. As the landlord must be given the chance to address this matter locally before the Ombudsman investigates its response, it is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

The resident is in a landlord and tenant relationship with the landlord and the property is a two-bedroom flat. The resident’s communication to the landlord about concerns with its service has been on behalf of herself and other residents within the tenant’s association. The Ombudsman enquired into the nature of the complaint and explained the process for accepting group complaints; it was then established that this would be considered as the resident’s sole complaint about the landlord.
In September 2019, the tenant’s association had a meeting with the landlord. During this meeting, the parties discussed the service provisions and the communal gardens, as well as issues with reporting repairs. It was established that there were issues with the contractor at the time who was not able to provide the services which the landlord required, so the contract would be going under a tendering process.
In October 2019, the resident made numerous reports to the landlord about:

the communal garden maintenance
the communal cleaning
the external fences, gates and locks were not replaced despite the belief that this should have been completed in May 2019
the communal aerial needed upgrading so that residents could access preferred channel signals, the current situation was that residents were putting up their own individual satellites without planning permission.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns at stage 1 of its complaint procedure on 15 October 2019 and gave the timescale of 20 working days for a response, though it said this could take longer for complex issues. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 28 October 2019:

Regarding the grounds maintenance it said that the contractor’s last visit was on 24 October and it was advised by the regional manager that they would address the overgrowth. It asked the resident if she had noticed any works. It was awaiting a response about the grass left on the hardstanding areas.
Regarding the intercom and communal aerial, it provided details of its investigation into the upgrade and when this could take place, it also gave its position on non-permitted satellites.
It said that the intercoms system would not be replaced, but its settings could be adjusted.
The fence and gate would not be worked on under the current year as it was not on the planned works. Existing fences and gates would be repaired as needed until the upgrade.
A job was raised on 24 October 2019 for the fire door, it asked the resident if this was completed.
Regarding the communal cleaning, it told the contractor of the incomplete work during a visit and asked for a list of future visit dates and for them to address the missing work during this.

The resident and landlord exchanged further communication, the resident iterated her concerns about the contractor not carrying out a sufficient standard of works and outstanding issues with the garden, intercom and fire door. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s position on the aerial upgrade, saying that the solution was not to rely on individual satellites but have the communal one upgraded. She was also unhappy about the fence renewal being postponed. The landlord’s response focused on its position if there had been individual satellites put up, saying that these could be a breach and it would investigate any reports of this. The internal records show that the landlord was at one point not sure what the resident was seeking as an outcome.
The resident escalated the complaint on 28 October 2019 on the following grounds:

The contractor attended but they did not deal with everything that needed to be addressed.
The gardening contract was implemented without consultation, the scope of the contract did not meet the gardening needs.
Regarding the communal aerial, the resident said that the landlord should not consider allowing individual satellites. The resident said this was a communal facility and should be maintained through service charges.
Regarding the intercom, the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision not to update this until 2029 and instead consider reports when they were escalated as repairs.
Regarding the fencing/gates upgrade the resident was unhappy that the works would not happen in the current years planned works. The resident said she was promised this would be done in 2019, she queried why this had been withdrawn.
Regarding the fire door, the resident confirmed that the contractor attended but they “shaved more off the door without properly completing the job. I have asked for the fire door to be rehung because it keeps dropping…it slams shut and the wood in the surround has split I have asked for someone to be onsite and inspect these repairs which should be the surveyor. I am attaching the photographs of the repair to this fire door…this door has had so many repairs and wood shaved off it to shut it will require an entire new door and spring mechanism”.

The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 2 on 30 October 2019. It offered a provisional response to the issues and said:

It had liaised with the housing manager and asked for a copy of the existing ground maintenance specification and made the contractor aware of the complaint.
The housing manager did an inspection on 9 October 2019 and provided the contractor with photographs they took with the request that they attend to address these areas on their next visit. The contractor replied on 19 October 2019 and said they would tidy these areas.
The landlord contacted the resident after the contractor attended on 24 October to see if works had been completed, the resident said on 28 October that the allocated time for the gardening was not sufficient.
Regarding the communal cleaning, the landlord said it checked the cleaning specification and confirmed this included the job “10.2 – to wash down all the door, window frames and sills to remove dust, dirt and marks…”. It had the contractor address this and they confirmed with photographic evidence of the completed job on 29 October. It said the new contractor had a sign off sheet to be put in communal areas; the contractor provided a proposed template of this and the landlord confirmed this included the specification areas so each element could be ticked off once completed during a visit.
Regarding the satellite aerial, the landlord understood that the communal one was not compatible with the desired satellite signal so residents had put up their own which was against building regulations. The landlord enquired with its planned works department to see if any upgrades were planned and the response given was that they could not confirm this until the new year once the schedule was completed.
Regarding the intercom system, the landlord said this was not due for cyclical renewal until 2029.
Regarding the external fencing, the landlord explained that the works were postponed and would not be completed in 2019/20.
Regarding the fire door the landlord said that following the resident’s report, it raised a job for 24 October 2019 in which it requested that the door be taken off and rehung. As the resident said on 28 October 2019 that this was not completed per the request, a new job was raised to rectify this.
The landlord apologised for not having addressed the complaint points and agreed to escalate the complaint.

The landlord then issued its final response on 13 December 2019:

Regarding the ground maintenance, it said it was going to discuss the issue with its senior staff and chief executive to find the best way forward and a decision would be made soon.
Regarding the communal cleaning, it said its housing manager worked with the new contractor to address common areas of concern at the property.
As part of the new contract the contractor have an IT system to record actions completed, and the landlord could review the completion of the tasks remotely, also, any rectification notices would be reviewed at monthly meetings between the landlord and contractor.
Regarding the communal aerial, the landlord said that the aerial contractor attended on 9 December to complete a repair to restore the full signal to the aerial and it requested a quote for an upgrade following the resident’s requests, though no upgrade was planned. It said that it would in the meantime carry out responsive repairs. In response to individual satellites which residents had put up, it confirmed that permission was granted for these.
Regarding the intercom system, it said that the maintenance team’s latest inspection confirmed that it was working and any previous issues had since been repaired. It would be repaired as needed until the renewal.
Regarding the planned works to the external fence, it said that the planned renewal was postponed and the maintenance team had decided that the fences were in a suitable condition, with several years lifespan remaining. It would be repaired as needed until the renewal.
Regarding the fire door repairs, it said that it understood this was not rectified on the visit of 11 December 2019 so it asked for this to be rectified and it will monitor this until completion.

The rectification form submitted on 18 December 2019 shows the works highlighted to the contractor and the contractor’s responses and evidence of the works it did complete. The date of these actions post date the final response letter.

Assessment and findings

The standard of ground maintenance

The landlord’s obligations are set out in the tenancy agreement. This includes the services which the resident pays for. The reasonableness of the charge and the scope of the works included cannot be considered by the Ombudsman and should instead be enquired about with the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
The Ombudsman considers whether the landlord acted appropriately, and in line with its obligations. As per the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obligated to: “make provisions for the common parts to be properly cleaned and maintained”.
There is no legal requirement under the tenancy agreement regarding the scope or the standard of the work. While the resident has expressed their frustration at the level of works carried out by the landlord’s operatives, to adopt a greater scope in gardening services would be an improvement on the services it provides and the landlord is not under an obligation to deliver this.
The landlord has responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of dissatisfaction. It did so by engaging with residents and letting them know of the change in contractor, inspecting the garden, providing the contractor with photographs of the reported problems and asking them to address this. It looked into the garden specification and requested that the contractor carry out remedial action to the garden. Once it became aware of the unattended areas, the landlord highlighted this to its contractors who attended to carry out additional maintenance work.
The resident’s complaint was that the landlord did not follow up with the rectification notices. The evidence suggests that it did, and the contractor responded after the date of the final response. The resident remained dissatisfied with the level of the gardening works, stating that the time allocated to undertake this was not adequate. It is not for this Service to assess the technical aspects of a work schedule, though it is acknowledged that the resident is dissatisfied with the work schedule.
The landlord’s final response to the resident about the grounds maintenance issue was reasonable as it acknowledged the resident’s concerns, it explained the action it took in serving rectification notices as the previous contractor’s role came to an end and it expressed that it was undertaking a review to find the best action to take.

The standard of communal cleaning

The evidence demonstrates that once the landlord was notified of the issues with the cleaning (wipe down the windows, ledges and doors not wiped down) it raised this with its operatives who addressed the issue. The landlord acted appropriately because it addressed the specific incident and rectified this, it inspected the property and it was reasonable to rely on the evidence provided by its operatives of the completed work. It also demonstrated a resolution focused approach to the problem by implementing a system to prevent the situation from recurring and monitor the cleaning services.

The request for upgrade to communal aerial

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that the landlord must keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes the requirement to keep the installations in the property for the supply of select items in good repair and proper working order. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord has repair obligations which extend to the “structure and exterior of the Property, including drains, gutters and external pipe” and “the installation in the Property for the supply of water, gas and electricity …” and to “make provision for the upkeep of common services such as common part lighting and lift services where these are provided”. There is no obligation to upgrade or improve the satellite provisions.
Looking therefore at whether the landlord has acted appropriately, its decision to repair the aerial as needed is reasonable. The resident’s request for an upgrade was at times skewed with the complaint about individual residents in the block adding their own satellites. The landlord’s response to each was reasonable:

– It provided its approach on non-permitted structures (satellites) and invited the resident to provide more details in order for it to investigate and tenancy breaches. It subsequently confirmed that the existing installations were permitted.

– It carried out a repair of the aerial and then requested a quote for an upgrade, though none was planned.

Ultimately, the landlord’s response to the request for an upgrade was reasonable as it demonstrated responsiveness in light of its repair obligations (of the communal areas) and then it also considered the request for an upgrade.

Issues with intercom system and trade access settings

The landlord’s records show that it decided that it would repair the system as needed. As the request for an upgrade was a request for an improvement, the decision on whether or not to undertake this would be discretionary for the landlord, rather than obligatory. It is therefore reasonable for the landlord to consider repairing the system, rather than replacing it. The landlord’s subsequent decision to consider upgrading the intercom system was discretionary, based on the risk of difficulty in sourcing components if needed in the future rather than a failure of the system. Therefore, its response to this has been reasonable.

Planning works to external fencing

The landlord’s decision to repair the fencing was not satisfactory to the resident. However, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord has carried out repairs following the reports of issues when they arose and the underlying concern for the resident was the landlord’s decision to postpone the replacement of the fence. It is acknowledged that the resident is frustrated at the dates being pushed back but doing so was a decision that the landlord was entitled to make, as it was not under an obligation to improve the fencing, rather repair it. There is no evidence that it has failed to uphold its repair obligations in deciding to postpone the replacement.

Outstanding repair to fire door

Following a site inspection on 11 September 2019 the housing officer declared that action was required to the internal fire doors of some of the estates. This included the resident’s property. The doors were not closing properly and needed to be adjusted, an email was sent to raise the repair which had a target date of 18 September 2019. This was not raised again in the subsequent site inspections of October or November, though in the complaint response referred to a further job raised for 24 October 2019 which the resident was dissatisfied with resulting in a new report on 28 October 2019. A further job was arranged for 14 November 2019.
The landlord’s and resident’s correspondence do not dispute that the fire door required repairing, but the landlord appears to have relied on the resident’s diagnosis of the issue while the operatives appear to have adjusted the fire doors according to their own understanding, leading to the repair remaining outstanding.
Though some repairs were carried out, the landlord should have been more proactive in assessing the repair and arranging for this to be resolved appropriately, rather than raising a new job each time the resident was dissatisfied with how the works were carried out.
Whilst the landlord responded to the resident’s reports, the evidence does not show that it carried out its own inspection by an appropriately qualified expert before arranging for the correct and relevant repair to be carried out. Given the health and safety implications of an outstanding repair to this component within the property, the decision to rely on feedback from the resident was not appropriate. The landlord’s final response said that it would ask for this to be rectified and it would monitor this until completion, which is reasonable, however, it is unclear whether this has since been completed appropriately.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the outstanding repair to the fire door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaints about:
1. the standard of ground maintenance
2. standard of communal cleaning
3. the upgrade to the communal aerial
4. upgrade of the intercom system
5. the request for the works to the external fencing

Reasons

The landlord raised several repairs for the fire door, however, these do not appear to have resolved the issue and it should have been more diligent in assessing what repair was needed and then in carrying this out.
The landlord’s obligations were to keep the communal areas cleaned and maintained, the question over the scope or standard of work in connection with the service charges are beyond the Ombudsman’s remit.
The request to upgrade the communal aerial and renew the external fencing is regarded as an improvement and the landlord’s decision over this is discretionary. The landlord demonstrated its willingness to address any reports as repairs, which is in line with its repair obligations under the tenancy agreement.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

– Confirm to this Service and the resident that the fire door repair has been completed;

– Pay £50 compensation to the resident for any inconvenience caused to them by its highlighted failures in regard to the fire door repair.

The landlord is to confirm its compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.