Home Group Limited (202210494)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210494

Home Group Limited

13 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over its handling of service charges and the services received.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the property.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat in a retirement home complex, for over 55’s owned by the landlord. She moved into the property in February 2019.

Summary of events

Between 13 June 2019 and 26 February 2021, the resident raised a number of issues which included:
1. What the current position of her service charge was, including if there was a credit or deficit in what residents had paid and if she could get a breakdown.
2. Issues with the boiler breaking down and concerns about installation of a new one.
3. The poor condition of the building’s roof and guttering.
4. Issues with the communal dryer, the door entry service not working and concerns about the quality of the gardening and cleaning contracted service.
The landlord responded to some of the issues through the period 13 June 2019 to 26 February 2021 as follows:
1. It told the resident there was a service charge credit as it had not spent anything on planned repairs over 10 years as it had not completed a stock survey. It informed her it had assigned this money to further repairs or installations as follows:
  1. Completed installation of a new communal boiler.
  2. Completed installation of a new fire panel and smoke alarms.
  3. Planned works for internal sensor lighting and communal carpets.
2. It provided a formal complaint response on 26 June 2020 confirming it would make good the poor-quality finishing of the smoke alarms. It raised the lack of PPE with the contractor to take further action.
3. The resident reported a leak in her property on 18 December 2020 and the landlord repaired this the following day.
4. It apologised for taking no action with the roof and guttering. It told her it planned works to remove moss, treat the roof and install a guard to the guttering.
5. It had made no further progress with the door entry or contracted gardening issues the resident had.
The resident told the landlord on 26 February 2021 there were ongoing issues with the new communal boiler not working correctly. She also raised when the landlord would complete works to the roof and guttering. She asked when it would reply to her issues about the door entry and contracted gardening service.
On 15 March 2021, the landlord created a complaint action plan to address the outstanding concerns raised by the resident. This was a live document, and this Service has only seen evidence of the document that it would use as its complaint response of 13 January 2022. The landlord’s stage one complaint response addressed the following concerns:
1. It would keep residents updated in a meeting each year about the service charge for the following year. It had spent the credit of service charges on major works. It shared how the service charge was regulated by the Housing Benefit service. It also clarified its stock condition survey and what further work was planned for the building. It agreed to draw up a service agreement between the residents of the building and the landlord.
2. It clarified its policy about void properties and said it completed minimal work on her property due to the timescale involved. It said it could not compensate the resident for work she had carried out to make good the property after moving in.
3. It explained it was looking at purchasing new washing machines due to a majority decision from residents. It also said it would review procurement for its door entry service.
4. It should have completed a job to clear the gutters by 4 November 2021 but planned works to the fascia, soffits, and downpipes in 2025.
5. It had put a new gardening contractor into place from October 2021 and it had asked them to provide a specification of works to residents. It confirmed it would complete a contract review with its previous gardening contractor.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord informed the resident of the complaint outcome in person before sending her the formal outcome on 13 January 2022. The resident raised her complaint escalation request to the landlord verbally on 11 January 2022. She told the landlord the following:
1. She wanted a full breakdown of service charges, what it was used for and what had been spent in the past 5 – 10 years. She wanted to be sure she was not owed a refund and wanted an explanation why the service charge was fair.
2. She believed other flats had received compensation for making their flats good after moving in and the landlord had sufficient time to make hers good before she moved in.
3. She said she was having issues with the boiler and the door entry issue was not resolved.
4. She was concerned the roof works completed were not what it originally agreed with her. She said the fascia was falling, had birds nesting in it and she believed there was asbestos present.
5. She was uncertain of the quality of the new gardening contractor and wanted to see the specification of works.
The landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 8 February 2022. It provided the updated complaint action plan as its response. It told the resident the following:
1. The landlord said it was under no obligation to provide all the information relating to service to the resident as an assured tenant. It also said it would not have retained much of the information due to the time that had elapsed. It agreed to provide an overarching statement the next month. It agreed to start completing resident’s meetings with the next one being on 9 February 2022.
2. It said it changed its policy regarding voids after the resident moved in, so other residents would have benefited where she did not. It said it could not pay compensation for anyone affected before the policy change.
3. It would determine what remedial work was required for the boiler and pass this on to the contractor for repair.
4. It had added the door entry issue to a procurement list to find a new contractor. It also found its gardening contractor had missed appointments so it would refund the residents.
5. Work to clear moss from the building’s roof was disproportionately expensive and it would not complete it. It confirmed it would add barriers to gutters and repair the broken soffit.
The resident took her complaint to the landlord’s Independent Complaints Panel, and they responded to the resident on 20 April 2022. They stated the following:
1. The landlord should address all points raised in the resident’s complaint, make her aware of the long-term plans of the scheme and consider refunding her for a staff member that was absent for a prolonged period.
2. The landlord should continue to build trust through regular meetings and improved communication. It should review and revise its budget making and share with the resident.
3. The residents should consider setting up a resident’s association and the landlord should provide a support grant for this.
Following the outcome of the Independent Complaints Panel the landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2022. It confirmed it had reviewed the outcome and would be taking the following action:
1. It agreed to complete monthly meetings, install a repairs book and wallboard for critical information. It would arrange for service delivery colleagues to be on site to facilitate communication. Its first monthly meeting would be for 30 June 2022 to discuss service charges over the past 3 years and planned maintenance. It would also share its draft budget and acknowledged it should have done this before it finalised service charges the previous year.
2. It was arranging a defect checking process to ensure the boiler was working correctly and would update residents at the meeting on 30 June 2022.
3. It had set up a national working group for older people services and how it could improve on the general service it was offering to older people.
4. It confirmed it had ordered a repair for the front door but would review the door entry system over the next 2 to 3 years. It said it would review the current system through its procurement process.
5. It would run a further consultation with residents about obtaining an additional dryer.
The landlord completed the residents meeting with the residents of the building on 30 June 2022 and it discussed the following:
1. It acknowledged it had neglected the building in the past and residents should be “enjoying life without needing to chase things up.” It provided a breakdown of the previous year’s underspend/overspend of service charges.
2. It had put a new Operations Manager in place and would be putting a new maintenance and repair contractor into place.
3. It arranged a meeting with residents for 2 November 2022 to discuss the service charge for the following year.
4. The landlord would refund the residents for further non-attendance by its garden contractor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 and 13 September 2022 asking why a contractor had turned up with only a ladder to clear the gutters when the noticeboard stated a cherry-picker would be used. The landlord replied on 13 September 2022 stating it would get answers for the resident. It confirmed the cost of clearing the gutters was not service chargeable and the responsibility of the landlord.
The resident raised her concerns with the Ombudsman on 14 October 2022 and stated the following:
1. The landlord was not being transparent on its service charges and failed to provide an itemised breakdown.
2. The landlord’s communication was poor, and she was not receiving clear answers to her questions or not receiving a response at all.
3. The landlord failed to correctly respond to her reports about outstanding repairs or an additional dryer.
4. The landlord failed to consider compensation for the stress, inconvenience, and service failure.
5. The landlord had made a communal toilet inaccessible and for staff only.
The landlord completed a meeting on 2 November 2022 with the resident about the service charge for the following year. She told it the following day the explanation in the meeting made the information easy to understand. She asked that the landlord complete a meeting to discuss the following years’ service charge annually in November.
On 15 November 2022, the landlord updated the resident’s complaint action plan for the final time. It stated the following:
1. It had provided the resident with in–depth information about the service charge over the past 3 years on 30 June 2022. It had discussed the service charge budget for her for the following year on 4 November 2022.
2. It considered the matter of the condition of the resident’s property when she moved in to be closed. It said it had previously provided its explanation.
3. It had created space to accommodate a tumble dryer and would update its door entry system by 2025 to go digital. It acknowledged that the issue remained unresolved.
4. It had added mesh to the buildings gutters to reduce moss getting in and repaired the soffit on the building.
5. It had received the specification from the gardening contractor and had added this to the building noticeboard.
6. It apologised for past failings and its new Operations Manager would collaborate with the resident to agree clear communication in future.

Assessment and findings

Scoping.

The Ombudsman will not consider the complaint about use of a communal toilet raised on 14 October 2022 and costs for a Housing Manager Coordinator raised on 31 January 2024 in correspondence with this Service. These are separate issues to the complaint raised through the landlord’s complaints policy and therefore the Ombudsman does not have the authority to investigate. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to issues through its internal complaint procedure, in line with 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, prior to the Ombudsman accepting these issued through its formal investigation process.
If the resident wishes to pursue these issues, she will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint. It is noted however that the issue relating to the communal toilet occurred some time ago and it may no longer be possible for the landlord to accept this through its complaints process. The resident may be able to refer any new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
The resident has mentioned that she is dissatisfied with service charges levied by the landlord in relation to projected and actual costs. Under Paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not normally consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.leaseadvice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over its handling of service charges and the services received.

The occupancy agreement states the resident is responsible for the net rent water rate and service charge. The landlord will determine the service charge in April of each year. It confirms it has the right to vary the service charge at any time in the event of unforeseen additional cost or savings incurred or achieved. It will abide by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in determining or adjusting the service charge. It confirms it is not required to provide information or consult with residents on changes to rent or service charges.
The landlord’s Service Charge Policy defines a service charge as a payment made by a customer towards the cost of providing and maintaining services and benefits to them beyond the benefit of enjoying occupation of their home. It will provide the resident with a clear statement of service charges annually which summarises services delivered. It expects all its staff members to have a strong understanding of service charges to enable to provide effective explanations.
In accordance with the Regulator of Social Housing Policy Statement on Rents and for Social Housing (February 2019) the landlord is expected to set reasonable and transparent service charges which reflects service provided to tenants. Tenants should be supplied with clear information on how service charges are set and consult with tenants when new or extended services are introduced.

Service charge information.

This Service has seen evidence the landlord provided the resident with its Summary of Service Charges for 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 in accordance with its Service Charge Policy.
Between 13 June 2019 and 1 August 2019, the resident asked for a face-to-face meeting to discuss her concerns about a surplus or deficit in the service charge payments but either did not get a response or was told the relevant staff member was busy. The resident felt the landlord was not taking her seriously when it failed to meet her to discuss her concerns. There is no evidence it met with her following this.
The resident raised the issue again on 19 March 2020 and received a response from the landlord on 14 April 2020 confirming it would attempt to obtain details of what it had collected and spent in service charges in the past 6 years. It said it would give a breakdown each year following this. The landlord acknowledged here it had not previously provided a breakdown to residents but failed to explain why it had not done so or apologise for not having done so.
The landlord failed to follow through on its agreement of 14 April 2020 to provide the resident with information about the service charge underspend or overspend. As such it failed to work in a resolution focused manner. The landlord realised on 13 July 2020 it had not completed a stock condition review at the property for some time (which is assessed in ‘Repairs). It said it would provide the service charge information to the resident once the stock condition survey was complete.
The resident raised her concerns with the lack of response to the service charge information on 22 July 2020 and 11 October 2020. There is no evidence the landlord replied until 7 December 2020, informing the resident it had found a significant underspend of service charges collected over 7 years and had used this to pay major works. The landlord failed to update the resident throughout this period despite her chasing this which caused her time and trouble, inconvenience, and distress.
Furthermore, the resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will consult with the resident on any matter of housing procedure that affects occupation of service charges. There is no evidence the landlord consulted the residents on using the underspend of collected service charges to pay for the large repairs it authorised. This was a breakdown in communication between the landlord and resident.
The resident asked to meet the landlord to discuss service charges for 2021 and the landlord attempted to arrange further meetings in during 2021 but the landlord cancelled these due to COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time. The resident asked on 25 February 2021 for the landlord to provide a response about service charges for 2021 by 4 March 2021 but there is no evidence of this taking place. The landlord should have made further arrangements to communicate with the resident on when it would be able to pick the issue up again.
The concerns about service charges formed part of the Complaint Action Plan devised on 15 March 2021 but it is unclear if the landlord discussed this with the resident until its stage one complaint response of 13 January 2022. The stage one complaint response provided appropriate information about the following:
1. It promised to keep residents updated on service charges at regular meetings and would review the following years’ service charge with residents at the end of the year.
2. It said there was no sinking fund and it had spent an underspend of service charges on large repairs. It said where there was a significant under/overspend it would modify its budget for the following year. It explained this was the typical way of maintaining service charges in the housing sector.
In its stage two complaint response of 8 February 2022 the landlord said it was under no obligation to provide all service charge information for the previous 5 to 10 years as she had requested. It said this was in accordance with “service charge legislation” and would change if she was a “secure tenant.” It is unclear what legislation and part of it was referring to. It should have made this clear to the resident to help her understanding. The landlord did agree to provide an overarching statement the following month, which was appropriate. The landlord provided this information in the meeting between the landlord and resident on 30 June 2022, but did not provide this within a month as it had agreed, taking 143 days in total.
The landlord’s stage one and stage two complaint responses acknowledged that communication with the resident had not been sufficient. However, it offered no apology for its failure to provide information to the resident, nor did it consider awarding her any compensation in line with its Complaints Policy.
As a result of the outcome of the Independent Complaint Panel of 20 April 2022, the landlord completed a meeting on 30 June 2022 to discuss service charges over the previous 3 years with the resident. The resident initially asked for this from the beginning of 2021 which meant the landlord was delayed by 18 months in completing such a meeting. The landlord completed a meeting as agreed on 4 November 2022 to discuss the following years’ service charge as it had promised. The resident reported she was happy with the outcome of this meeting.

Services received.

The landlord’s Service Charge Policy confirms it is committed to providing services that are “fair, reasonable, affordable and deliver good value for money.”
The resident first reported issues with the communal front door on 13 July 2020 stating she had no access with the fob. She raised it again on 29 August 2020, but the landlord failed to respond or call her back as she had requested.
The landlord in its stage one and two complaint responses said the responsibility for this lay with its ‘careline provider’ and it was looking at the service offered through its procurement service. Although the third-party provider operated the operation of the fob system there is no evidence the landlord investigated the issue further. It accepted the provider’s response that it prioritised other services over fob entry. This was unreasonable as it demonstrates the landlord not having control of the issue nor taking the issue seriously.
The landlord told the resident in its stage one and two complaint responses it had the same issues with its careline provider across all its sites. Its responses on 27 May 2022 and 15 November 2022 that it would review the service over the next 2 to 3 years was unhelpful and did not offer a solution to the issue that had been ongoing since 13 July 2020. This further demonstrated the landlord not taking issues seriously or in a resolution focused manner. The landlord’s timeline of works suggests households may be affected for more than 5 years which was unreasonable.
The resident raised issues with the communal tumble dryers on 10 February 2021. The resident raised this with the Independent Complaints Panel on 25 March 2022. The landlord told the resident on 27 May 2022 it would hold a consultation with the residents of the building about installing an additional dryer. The timescale from the resident first raising the issue to the landlord responding was 472 days, which was an unreasonable amount of time to respond and caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. It is noted that it had resolved the issue by 15 November 2022 by making space to accommodate a further dryer.
On 26 January 2021, the resident reported that the gardeners were turning up late and she wanted to know when they would be on site. There is no evidence the landlord considered this until 4 November 2021 where internally it asked for the garden maintenance specifications. It did not formally respond to the issue until 15 January 2022 in its stage one complaint response. The timescale of 355 days to respond was unreasonable.
However, in the landlord’s stage one complaint response it did show it had a grasp on the gardening issue as it had put a new contractor into place and was meeting with them every 8 weeks. It promised the resident on 15 January 2022 that it would provide her with the specifications of the gardening contract. It provided this to the resident by 15 November 2022, but it is not clear in the landlord’s records when this was. It was also reasonable in paying the resident a refund for missed appointments for its gardening contractor.
In summary the landlord was delayed in responding to the resident’s request for information. It took from 13 June to 7 December 2020 to confirm if there had been an underspend of collected service charges. It then took from the start of 2021 to 30 June 2022 to provide a full breakdown and explanation of the service charge to the resident and what it had been spent it on. As part of this it broke promises about responding or failed to respond to her altogether. It was delayed in responding and resolving issues raised about communal tumble dryers and the gardening contractor. In addition, the issues with the door entry system are believed to remain outstanding. All these issues caused inconvenience and distress to her, making her feel she was not being listened to.
As a result of all the issues above the Ombudsman has determined there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over its handling of service charges and the services received. The Ombudsman has ordered £500 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with moderate impact to the resident throughout that period. Whilst there were multiple issues and the resident was clearly impacted, these issues largely related to communal service delivery issues that would have been inconvenient rather than having a high degree of impact on a regular basis.
Although unclear from the evidence the resident informed this Service, she had raised concerns with the landlord regarding whether untouched service charge underspends are added to its central budget for spending elsewhere. A recommendation will be made to make this clear to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the property.

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy states repairs will be carried out to the highest of standard and its repairs service complements its programmes of cyclical and planned maintenance. It operates a “first right time” approach for repairs and when this is not possible will keep the resident informed about when they can expect the repair to be completed. The policy splits repairs into two categories:
1. Emergency repairs it classifies as when present can cause immediate risk to safety, security, or health. It states it will attend in 6 hours and complete a repair within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs, completed within 14 calendar days.
The landlord’s website confirms it is responsible for smoke detectors, gas fired system with radiators, banging pipes, smoke detectors, downpipes, gutters, roof, and external doors. It will complete post inspection of 10% of responsive repairs.

Void issue.

This Service has found evidence the resident raised issues with the quality of the finish of her property from the void inspection on 24 February 2020. She said she was aware other resident’s properties were finished to a better standard when they moved in. There is no evidence it responded to the issue until its stage one complaint response of 13 January 2021 where it acknowledged it had done minimal work. Its policy on voids states that it is “necessary on occasion to award decorating vouchers to incoming customer”. There is no evidence the landlord offered to the resident, and it should have done so.
The landlord’s response of 13 January 2021 also apologised for confusion it caused and the resident feeling she had been treated unfairly compared to other residents. It said it used the feedback from the resident and has improved the process over time. It said it could not compensate her as she moved into her property before it changed its process. The landlord showed it was learning from feedback and improving the void process as a result, but this had no bearing on the detriment suffered by the resident.
The landlord said it did not have sufficient time to complete repairs to the resident’s property before she moved in because of her selling her former property. The landlord’s policy on voids states it will complete an inspection on resident’s leaving properties to minimise the length of time they were void, so therefore it should have been aware what it was required to do to make good the property before it became void.
The resident’s concerns that she had been treated differently to other residents is understandable. It is important to note however, that treated tenants fairly and treating them equally are different concepts and there will be occasions where one tenant will benefit from a service in a way that a different tenant will not, with that difference not amounting to unfair treatment. The landlord changed its process, seemingly in part due to the resident’s reports on this issue. This is to be commended as it demonstrates learning on the landlord’s part and a commitment to improve services.
This investigation will not therefore make an adverse finding on this aspect of the landlord’s service delivery, except in relation to any lack of fair service the resident experienced. In this respect, it has been identified that the landlord could have offered vouchers to the resident following its ‘minimal’ void work and that its void management process was not suitable in this case.

Stock condition survey.

For a landlord to fully understand its property is being maintained and meets the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ it should complete a stock condition survey, its Property Management Policy also confirms this. The landlord’s policies and website provide no information on how frequently it will complete a stock condition survey, but it admitted on 22 July 2020 it had not completed one for 3 and a half years. As such it failed to understand if the resident’s building met the ‘Decent Homes Standard’ as it was not aware of the condition of the property and any planned maintenance that was required. It completed this by 20 October 2020 and once complete, it completed appropriate planned repairs to the communal boiler and fire alarm.

Communal boiler.

On 27 April 2020, the resident reported the communal boiler had broken down and there was no heating or hot water. This met the classification for an emergency repair in the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy. As such it should have attended in 6 hours and completed a repair in 24 hours. However, it failed to abide by this, telling the resident on 27 April 2020 it would not complete a repair for 4 days. It was reasonable in offering to decant the resident to a hotel, but there is no further evidence whether the landlord considered this for the 29 people in the building as the resident suggested. There is no evidence to state the specific date it repaired the boiler, but the landlord stated on 3 June 2020 it had completed a temporary repair.
Evidence shows the resident reported a breakdown of the communal boiler on 4 and 9 June 2020. The landlord’s repair records do not show its response to the report and when it completed the repair. The lack of evidence of how it responded indicates concern from both a repairs and record keeping perspective.
The landlord installed a new communal boiler by 2 December 2020. The resident reported issues with the new boiler on 8 January 2021 stating there were loud noises from the pipes, water was boiling hot, and the pressure was too high. The resident raised the same issues with the boiler again on 28 February 2021 and 4 November 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord replied until 13 January 2022 which was a total of 371 days to respond to the issues. This suggests that the residents’ reports were not taken seriously. It also meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to resolve any issues within the boiler’s defects period, as it subsequently identified.
In its response of 13 January 2022, the landlord said appropriately it had tested the temperature of the water in “communal areas” and it was “within limits”. It also said it would send a survey to all residents about the boiler as the defect period ended in January 2022. There is no evidence the landlord completed the survey and the resident’s issues with the boiler remained and she raised this as part of her escalation request of 11 January 2022.
There is no further evidence the landlord took action with issues with the boiler until this was raised by the Independent Complaints Panel on 20 April 2022. It took action because of this stating it would complete a defect check by 30 June 2022. It should have done this much sooner to reduce the uncertainty, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. It provided an incomplete reply in its final response of 15 November 2022 stating, “we are working with” and adding nothing further. This failed to resolve the issue causing further detriment to the resident and the evidence indicates that the issue remains outstanding. The landlord told this Service on 8 February 2024 all outstanding maintenance to the communal boiler was complete.

Roof and guttering.

The resident first raised her concerns about blocked gutters on 13 June 2019. There is no evidence of the landlord taking any action until 14 August 2020 when it enquired internally what it should do. This failed to meet the landlord’s routine repair within 14 days within its Responsive Repairs Policy. It did not clear the gutters until 29 December 2020 which was a total of 566 days from when the resident first reported the issue. However, it did not clear the downpipes, and this remained an issue from this date.
In its stage one complaint response of 13 January 2022 the landlord said it had cleared all gutters by 4 November 2021. The evidence is not clear on when it completed this or to what level. However, the resident raised no further issues with blocked gutters or downpipes following this.
In her complaint escalation request of 11 January 2022, the resident reported there was asbestos around a broken fascia and the guttering. Although the presence of asbestos does not constitute disrepair, under the Housing Act 2004 a landlord must identify and effectively manage any asbestos in the property. If present it must then assess the vulnerability of the asbestos to damage and the extent of any fibre release. This Service can find no evidence of the landlord investigating the presence of asbestos at the property or replying to the resident about the issue. This is of serious concern as the landlord has not evidenced it having complied with the Housing Act 2004. This will understandably have caused concern to the resident about living in a potentially unsafe property.
On 29 December 2020, the landlord told the resident it recommended it would remove moss, treat the roof, and install a gutter guard. This never took place, and the resident raised this in the escalation of her complaint on 11 January 2022. In its response on 8 February 2022 the landlord said work to clear and treat the roof was disproportionately expensive. This was in contradiction to what it had told her on 29 December 2020. It is unclear why the landlord was not able to reach this decision sooner as the delay in confirming this caused confusion, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
On 13 September 2022 the landlord failed to correctly manage the resident’s expectations. It informed all residents work would be completed by a cherry picker to further clear gutters, however when work was completed it was one contractor using a ladder. The resident raised why the work was not completed as agreed on 13 September 2022, but it failed to provide her with a response, causing uncertainty of whether its promises and actions were aligned. In the landlord’s complaint action plan of 15 November 2022, it confirmed all outstanding work to the gutters was complete.
In a call with this Service on 2 February 2024 the resident stated she believed the landlord had no process in place for monitoring outstanding repairs and residents were left to chase this. This Service has seen no evidence of the landlord’s process for monitoring outstanding repairs in its Responsive Repairs Policy. There have been several instances of the resident contacting the landlord to chase repairs particularly to the roof on 26 February 2021, 3 March 2021, 9 November 2021, 11 January 2022, and 13 September 2022. The landlord did acknowledge on 30 June 2022 residents should be enjoying life without having to chase things up. There is no evidence this acknowledgement turned into action to improve its process on outstanding or incomplete repairs. This would have shown its commitment to improving the repairs process and learning from the various reports and complaints it received from the resident.

Doors.

The resident raised with the Independent Complaints Panel on 25 March 2022 that her front and back doors were not closing, and that this was a security concern. The landlord told her on 27 May 2022 it had ordered a new front door and was awaiting a contractor to attend. It said appropriately that the front door met current health and safety standards. It failed to discuss any action required for the back door in its response to the resident leaving her uncertain whether it was taking any action and whether it had listened to what she had raised.
On 30 June 2022 the landlord told the resident work to the communal front and back doors had “stalled” and it was “unclear how to progress”. This left the resident feeling confused as it had said on 27 May 2022 it was waiting for a contractor. The landlord received information from the police on 1 July 2022 that they were concerned about the security of the building as anyone could walk in. This added weight to the door issue being an emergency repair in accordance with the definition in the landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy. The landlord failed to treat it as an emergency and did not attend within 24 hours. It should have completed temporary or interim works to make the door safe then acted in a reasonable timeframe to achieve full resolution of the issue if it was unable to complete repairs immediately.
In its final Complaint Action Plan of 15 November 2022, the landlord classed the repair to the front door as “in progress”. It is uncertain if the landlord repaired the front door following this. The delay between the resident reporting the issue to it being “in progress” was 236 days without guarantee of its completion. The landlord informed this Service on 8 February 2024 repairs to the communal entrance door was complete. No further information was provided about the back door.
The landlord apologised several times to the resident for failing to complete repairs as agreed or for delays in completing them. It failed to follow through with this in its stage one and stage two complaint responses. It did not offer an apology to the resident for issues with completing repairs, nor did it consider compensation for the detriment caused to her.
In summary the repair issues raised by the resident in her complaint to this Service were not managed well by the landlord. It failed to abide by the timescales in its Responsive Repairs Policy for completing routine and emergency repairs. All issues took a long time to resolve, and the resident suffered moderate inconvenience and distress as a result. It also failed to investigate the potential presence of asbestos.
Due to the number of issues detailed above the Ombudsman finds there has been maladministration in the landlord’s response to repairs issues. The Ombudsman has ordered £600 compensation to the resident. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where maladministration has occurred over a protracted period with significant impact to the resident’s household. A further order will be made for the landlord to investigate all outstanding issues including the potential presence of asbestos in the property and repairs to the rear communal doors.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s website uses the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint as: “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.”
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that it treats complaints seriously, takes a positive approach and deals with complaints at the first point of contact. It will be “open and transparent” in its communication with a complainant and its treatment of them will not change because they have complained. It confirms it will respond in a timely manner, in accordance with legislation and regulation and where no resolution can be found will inform complainants how to escalate their complaint.
In its complaint responses to the resident the landlord has provided details of them being a stage one or stage two complaint. It is of some concern that the landlord’s Complaints Policy or the customer information on its website provides no such information about the stages of its complaints process. Furthermore, this Service has not seen evidence of the landlord having defined timescales in which it aims to respond to complaints. This ambiguity caused confusion to the resident in how the landlord would respond and by when.
The resident first raised a “formal complaint” on 24 June 2020. The landlord provided an appropriate response on 26 June 2020 which addressed her concerns about the quality of finish in the property and contractors not wearing PPE. However, the response failed to advise the resident what stage of the complaints process her response was or if she had any escalation rights. This follows on from the previous point about the ambiguity about its complaints process. This caused confusion to the resident on what the process was and her right to escalate.
On the 11 September 2020, the resident asked for her complaint of 24 June 2020 to be escalated but there is no evidence the landlord took any further action. As a result, the resident felt it was not taking her seriously and was detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship.
The resident raised several outstanding issues on 26 February 2021 which constituted a complaint under the Ombudsman’s complaint definition. The landlord created a complaint action plan from 15 March 2021, and this is believed to have been a live document. However, the landlord did not formally acknowledge the resident’s complaint until 22 October 2021. This delay caused confusion to the resident over the complaints process and whether the landlord was taking her seriously.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response formally to the resident on 13 January 2022. This was 322 days from when she initially raised her concerns on 26 February 2021 and 84 days from when it acknowledged her complaint on 22 October 2021. This did not meet the landlord’s Complaint Policy of responding within a “timely manner.” The delay in providing its complaint response caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, caused confusion about the complaints process, and denied her the opportunity to escalate her complaint sooner.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 January 2021 and the landlord acknowledged and then replied to the stage two complaint in an appropriate timescale on 8 February 2022.
Both the stage one and stage two complaint response provided the most recently completed Complaint Action Plan as the response to the complaint. Although the information contained within was thorough and covered most points raised there are concerns over how recent the information was. This was because the stage one complaint response of 13 January 2022 used the Complaint Action Plan completed in November 2021 (the exact date is unknown). As such the landlord’s response was not up to date and did not accurately reflect its most current position.
The stage two complaint response of 8 February 2022 advised the resident she could escalate her complaint to an Independent Complaints Panel. There is no information regarding this in the landlord’s complaints policy. Its website only advises about joining the panel and does not explain its role in its complaints process. The information provided by the landlord in this regard is inconsistent and caused confusion over its process.
The Independent Complaints Panel provided their outcome on 20 April 2022 and the landlord acted in a reasonable timeframe in responding to the resident on 27 May 2022 about what further action it would take because of this.

The landlord provided the resident with a further Complaint Action Plan on 15 November 2022, and it is of concern that the landlord provided this response to resolve relevant issues after it had provided its final response. It is also of concern that it did not use its complaint process to offer this redress to the resident. In causing the issues to remain unresolved caused inconvenience and distress over a prolonged period.
The landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy states it can award compensation because of service failure identified through the complaints process and will base each case on its own merits. It states it can also offer a goodwill gesture to maintain good relations with customers.
This report has found a number of issues with delays, communications and the landlord failing to abide by its policy. These had a significant impact on the resident’s wellbeing, costing her time and trouble, inconvenience, and distress. It is of serious concern that none of the landlord’s responses to her acknowledged this, showed her any empathy or understanding or considered compensation for the detriment caused to her. It suggested on 5 November 2021 it would offer the resident “afternoon tea or something similar” as an apology, but it never went on to mention this in any of its complaint responses.
For the reasons stated above this Service has determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s ineffective Complaints Policy caused ambiguity over its process. As such there were delays in its responses, unclear information and it failed to consider the detriment this caused to the resident.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to learn from issues and identify trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own complaint’s process in its delayed stage one complaint response time and communication with the resident.
To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures compensation of £250 has been ordered. A further order will be made for the landlord to review its complaints process and the information it provides to residents in line with the Ombudsman’s standards.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over its handling of service charges and the services received.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was expected to provide information to the resident about current service charge information but failed to do so over a long period. It was hampered by its inefficient record keeping and poor communication with the resident despite the resident requesting this information numerous times. It was delayed in responding to all issues raised about the quality of communal services and failed to resolve an issue to the resident’s door entry.
The landlord was delayed in responding to repair issues reported by the resident and completing subsequent repairs. In doing so it failed to meet the timescales for repair in its Repairs Policy. It failed to address an issue to the communal front door as an emergency and failed to investigate the presence of asbestos in the building.
The ambiguity in the landlord’s complaints process affected its ability to competently manage the resident’s complaint. It was delayed in providing its stage one complaint response and it failed to consider the detriment to the resident for delays and poor communication and did not consider compensation in accordance with its Complaints Policy.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and is to provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report to this Service.
1. Pay the resident a total of £1350 in compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for the delays and inappropriate handling of concerns over its handling of service charges and the services received.
  2. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays and inappropriate handling of reports of repair issues in the property.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s delays and unreasonable complaint handling.
2. The landlord must investigate all outstanding repairs issues and provide a written report on its findings including its expected timescales for resolution. This should include but is not limited to investigating the potential presence of asbestos in the property and repairs to the rear communal doors.
The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 8 weeks of this report:
1. Conduct a review of its repairs record keeping processes and procedures considering the findings in this report and the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s KIM report. The landlord is to provide this Service with the outcome of its findings and actions it proposes to take as a result.
2. Conduct a review of its Complaints Policy and the information it provides to residents about its complaints process in line with the Ombudsman’s standards. The landlord is to provide this Service with the outcome of its findings and any actions it proposes to take as a result.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide clarity to the resident if services charges that are collected by it that are not spent are added to its central budget to be spent elsewhere within its business.