Hyde Housing Association Limited (202315476)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315476

Hyde Housing Association Limited

30 September 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reported concerns about the standard of the:
  1. grounds maintenance.
  2. internal communal cleaning.
2. the resident’s concerns that the estimated service charges had increased.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident is a shared owner. He has lived in his first floor flat since December 2016. The landlord is the freeholder.
In February 2022 the landlord appointed a new contractor to carry out its internal communal cleaning and ground maintenance.
On several occasions throughout 2022 the resident raised the following concerns:
1. the bin store had not been cleaned.
2. the contractor had blown leaves into the plant areas [instead of removing them].
3. the landlord told him that the issues had been passed onto the contractor, but no action had been taken.
4. the communal noticeboard had not been updated with the new contractor’s task list.
The landlord replied to some of the resident’s contact. It said it was aware that some areas still “needed attention” which it would be address with its contractor.
In early 2023 the resident reiterated his previous concerns and added that the area to the back of the building had not been swept. In response the landlord said it was looking into obtaining a revised schedule of tasks and any missed attendances from the contractor.
In March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord’s service charge team. He had concerns that the estimated service charges had increased. The grounds maintenance charge was a “huge” amount of money and asked for clarification around the costs.
In April 2023 the resident reiterated his previous concerns about the ground maintenance He added he had not received a response to his enquiry about the increase in the estimated service charges.
In response, the landlord said that it was waiting for the contractor to provide a “bespoke” schedule of tasks. It is unclear whether it responded to the resident’s other concerns at that time.
On 30 April 2023 the resident made a complaint. He said:
1. he had concerns about the condition of the internal and external communal areas.
2. it was considered that the new contractors would provide a better service and issues would be rectified quickly. This was not the case. He had attached pictures to his previous emails to demonstrate the poor service. He said that the contractors attended when “they felt like it”.
3. the contractors had been in place for over year and the task list still had not been updated.
4. there had been outstanding issues from June/July 2022 that had only just been actioned. He was concerned that the service charge would be affected as the contractors attended “again and again” to (rectify the issues).
5. the estimated service charge for 2023-2024 for block services were £13,042.45, which was a “huge” increase from £3,703.45 in the 2022-2023 period. Previous actuals had shown that the estimated costs were “considerably” overestimated. He was concerned that the landlord had increased the estimate costs for 2023-2024 without taking into consideration the previous actuals.
6. he had emailed the service charge team on 9 March 2023. He said the issues had been ongoing for “too long” and the landlord kept residents waiting far too long for replies.
In May 2023 the resident continued to raise concerns about the contractor’s standard of grounds maintenance. He also raised concerns that the internal communal cleaning had not been done. Including dusting and removing cobwebs.
On 31 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response. It said:
1. it was only able to fully investigate service failures that may have occurred up to 6 months prior to the receipt of the resident’s complaint. Therefore it would not investigate the resident’s complaint about the previous contractor.
2. the resident had been sent estimates for the service charges 2023-2024. The service charge team would try and send the actuals by September 2024.
3. if the resident had further questions in relation to the service charge increase, he should contact the service charge team.
4. In relation to the communal cleaning, since cleaning was carried out every two weeks, the communal area was more likely to look untidy than if it was cleaned every week. It conducted inspections on the site every month and had made notes about things that “needed to be picked up.” However, it had not felt the need to fail the site.
5. it had challenged the contractor about attendance at various times, most recently from March 2023. The contractor had been able to provide digital evidence to satisfy it, that it had attended.
6. in relation to the grounds maintenance, records showed that contractor attended on May 3, 2023. It carried out an inspection on 10 May. It was satisfied that the ground maintenance had been finished to a satisfactory level.
7. it would put the scheduled day that the contractors should attend on the noticeboard. Visits were every 2 weeks and in the winter, every month.
8. it offered the resident £100 in compensation. £50 for the complaint handling failures and £50 for “customer effort.”
Around this time, the resident escalated his complaint. He said:
1. his complaint was about the new contractor who had not been attending the site properly since it had started in February 2022.
2. he would have to wait to receive the actuals for 2022-2023 before he could investigate further into how much the new contractors would charge for the “continued poor service.”
3. although the landlord could only look into a 6 month period, the issues had been ongoing for a long time.
In June 2023 the resident continued to reiterate his concerns about the standard of the internal and external communal cleaning. He also said:
1. he replied to the landlord’s stage 1 letter and had not received a response. He wanted to clarification on whether his complaint was going to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process.
2. wanted his recent concerns to be considered as part of his official complaint.
The landlord responded. It said:
1. the contractor needed to improve its attention to detail when completing the tasks.
2. it would check with the complaints team whether it had received his reply to its complaint response.
On 25 July 2023 the landlord issued its final response. It said it would not change its decision. It added:
1. it had checked all the points of the resident’s complaint and had responded fairly.
2. it only investigated complaints 6 months prior a resident’s complaint in line with its complaint policy as agreed by the Housing Ombudsman.
3. in the resident’s last email there was no new information about the complaint to consider.
It reiterated its stage 1 response that:
1. the communal areas were untidy because the cleaning was now carried out every two weeks.
2. it carried out inspections and had not felt to fail the site.
3. it had sent the resident estimate service charges and that actuals would be sent in September 2024.

Policies and procedures

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s estate service policy stated:
1. it carried out inspections in line with the frequency identified for each scheme.
2. it was “essential” that each estate inspection had a clear record of all activities and actions that were required.
3. Estate inspections ensured that the services its residents were paying for were being delivered by its contractors.
4. it “needed” to provide its residents with assurance that its estates were being inspected and the subsequent actions that have been identified would be monitored and completed within timescales.
Its service charge policy stated that:
1. one of its objectives were to “enhance the accuracy of service charge by learning from adjustments made to customer service charge statements and estimates.”
2. enquiries regarding the costs included in the service charge statement could not be raised as complaints. However, should it fail to respond to, or acknowledge a resident’s query it would consider initiating its complaints process to review the issue.
Its complaint policy stated:
1. it operated a 2 stage complaint process. It would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days for stage 2 complaints.
2. it carried out a full investigation at stage 1. It would act as the advocate for the resident and it would work together to understand the complaint and how the resident wishes it to put things right.
3. if the resident was not satisfied with its response at Stage 1,it would review the case to determine if it warranted a review at Stage 2.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident raised concerns that the landlord significantly increased his estimated service charges. It is noted that the resident explained that he would wait until he received the actuals to ascertain the final costs. The appropriate body to consider the level of service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). The FTT can make determinations on liability to pay a service charge, including the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord. The FTT can also decide if the charges were reasonably incurred. Where a complaint concerns service charges, it is important to distinguish between the remits of the Ombudsman and the FTT. The Ombudsman can investigate:
1. Whether the resident received the service being paid for.
2. Whether the standard and level of service provided was appropriate.
3. Whether the landlord provided key information to the resident on request about the service charges.
Therefore we have not considered whether the estimate or actual service charges were reasonable in this investigation. However we have given consideration to the above. If the resident wishes for a legally binding determination as to whether the charges are reasonable, he should contact the FTT.

Grounds maintenance

This Service has not been provided with contemporaneous evidence of the contractor’s attendance, the landlord’s estate inspection nor any correspondence between it and its contractors.
The landlord’s estate services policy stated that it was “essential” that each estate inspection should have a clear record of all activities and actions that were required. The importance of having a record of completed estate inspections is made clear by the landlord in its own policy. Therefore it is unclear why it has not been able to provide such records for this investigation.
Furthermore, the landlord should ensure that it, and those working on its behalf, maintain a clear and accurate audit trail of all actions relating to its ground maintenance. Not only do such records assist the landlord in reviewing its own service provision, they are also imperative in the event of an independent investigation conducted by organisations such as the Ombudsman.
It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing.
On several occasions throughout 2022 onwards, the resident raised his concerns about the performance of the new contractor. In early July 2022 the landlord explained to the resident it was meeting with the contractor to discuss the concerns that the resident had raised. This was positive. It suggested that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns on board and was taking action to work with its contractor to resolve the matter.
It told the resident that it would provide him with an update on the meeting within a week. However, approximately 2 weeks later, the resident had to chase the landlord for an update. The reason that the landlord did not update the resident as it said it would is unclear. Nonetheless, that it did not was unreasonable. It failed to adhere its own commitment and in doing so mismanaged the resident’s expectations that itself set. Subsequently, the resident had to chase it for an update. This caused him avoidable time, trouble distress and inconvenience.
The landlord responded at the end of July. It said:
1. it had discussed the outstanding work with its contractor.
2. the work would not be addressed in one visit.
3. it was aware that some areas still needed attention which it would address.
4. it would continue to work with its contractor to resolve the issues.
In the absence of contemporaneous records, it is unclear whether the landlord took any further action. For example, there is no evidence that it monitored the contractor’s performance. Nor that it made reasonable attempts to resolve the resident’s concerns. Therefore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it acted appropriately at this time.
In August 2022 the resident continued to raise his concerns that the contractor’s ground maintenance was poor. He also questioned why the landlord had passed the contractor’s maintenance on the inspection at the time. He said the condition of the estate after the contractors had attended was poor. He gave an example of the bin store that had not been cleaned. The landlord agreed. It said that as the areas had not yet been cleaned, it was unclear why it had passed the inspection.
This highlights our findings in our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) spotlight report that said if information was not created correctly, it had less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information. That the landlord’s inspection provided inaccurate information meant that it was unable to reasonably rely upon it to demonstrate that its contractors were delivering the required services. That was a further failing.
It also meant that its residents may have lost trust in the landlord’s ability to provide an accurate record of the condition of the estate at this time. In turn this may have caused harm to the resident and landlord relationship.
The resident reiterated his concerns in October 2022. He added that it appeared that the contractors had not attended since August 2022 as the issues had not been rectified. It is unclear whether the landlord responded. The resident had raised the same issues several times over a few months. That there is no evidence that the landlord resolved the issues is unreasonable. Nor that it did not have an appropriate action plan to do so at this time.
There is some evidence that the resident continued to reiterate his concerns over the months that followed. It is unclear whether the landlord responded. The resident also continued to raise the same concerns at the end of January/beginning of February 2023. He added that the back of his building had not been swept at that time.
In response, the landlord said that it was looking into obtaining a revised schedule of tasks. The evidence available suggests that this was the first time that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns that the task list had not been updated. The resident had raised these concerns several times over an approximately 7 months period. Therefore, while the reason for the delayed response and suggested action is unclear, that there was one is unreasonable.
It also said that the contractor would visit and deal with the areas that the resident had raised in his emails. We do not have any contemporaneous records of any visits, correspondence or inspections. Therefore it is unclear, if the landlord and its contractor took appropriate steps to resolve the issues that the resident had consistently raised for a prolonged period of time. That is a further failing.
In early April 2023 the resident continued to raise the same concerns. In response the landlord said that it was waiting for the contractor to provide a “bespoke” schedule of tasks. It also said that the contractor would be attending at the end of the month to pick up and clear the leaves. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it responded to the resident’s other concerns which included that the bin store was not adequately cleared or that the back of the building had not been cleaned. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that it was taking meaningful steps to monitor and reviewing the contractor’s performance. At this point, the resident had been raising the same concerns for approximately 9 months with the evidence suggesting that the landlord had not taken meaningful steps to resolve. Therefore, it is understandable that the resident raised a formal complaint about the issues at the end of April 2023.
In his complaint, the resident said that the standard of service for the communal areas were poor. He said that he provided the landlord with pictures of the poor service in his emails. He was concerned that the contractors attended when it “felt like it.” He also said that the landlord had still not updated the task list on the noticeboard.
In its complaint response the landlord said that the grounds team had attended on 3 May 2023 and that it had carried out an inspection a few days later. It said that the inspection determined that the grounds maintenance was completed to a satisfactory level. As we do not have a contemporaneous record of this inspection, we cannot determine whether the landlord appropriately used its records to provide the resident with accurate information.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the resident had been raising concerns about the standard of ground maintenance for approximately 9 months at this time. The landlord’s policy stated that estate inspections ensured that the services its residents were paying for were being delivered by its contractors. Therefore, that the landlord only referred to one inspection that was carried out after the resident’s complaint was unreasonable. The landlord’s response to the matter is discussed in further detail in our assessment of its complaint handling. However, it is noted in relation to this specific complaint, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns that its contractor had provided a poor service over a prolonged period of time.
The resident escalated his complaint. He said that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response because it had not failed the contractor consistently to show that there was a poor performance. He said that it wanted the poor performance to be addressed by the complaint process.
In its final response, the landlord said that it would not change its decision. It said that it had responded fairly to the resident’s complaint. This meant that the resident’s concerns about the contractor’s performance went unanswered.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. adequately respond to the resident’s concerns over a prolonged period of time in a timely manner.
2. demonstrate that it had adequately monitored and reviewed its contractor’s performance.
3. resolve the resident’s concerns over a prolonged period of time.

Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of the ground maintenance. While it is unclear, it is noted that the landlord may have appointed new contractors post complaint. This may help to improve some the issues that the resident had reported. However, the landlord should ensure that it learns from the issues identified by this investigation. In doing so, it should take steps to ensure that similar errors are not repeated.

Internal communal cleaning

As previously stated, we have not been provided with contemporaneous records of the contractor’s attendance and the landlord’s estate inspections. Nor any correspondence between the landlord and its contractor.
The evidence available suggests that the resident raised some concerns about the standard of the internal communal cleaning in 2022. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that the landlord responded to those issues at the time. There is no further evidence that the resident raised further concerns until his complaint in April 2023 when he said the contractor’s cleaning was poor.
He raised further concerns about the cleaning on or around 30 May 2023 . He said that the contractors did not dust or remove the cobwebs when it had attended. He asked the landlord to add these concerns to his complaint. It is unclear whether the landlord did so.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that as the cleaning was now carried out every 2 weeks, it was “more likely that it would look untidy”. That was unreasonable. The resident’s concern was that its contractor had not adequately cleaned when it attended. Therefore it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have addressed this specific concern.
It is noted that the landlord also said that it had made “notes about things” that the contractor needed to pick up. This response was vague. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have explained further about the outstanding issues and what steps it was taking to resolve those matters. This could have included an investigation into the resident’s concerns about the lack of dusting and clearing away the cobwebs. This would have demonstrated that it was taking the resident’s concerns seriously, that it was engaging in a meaningful way and was committed to resolving the matter. That it did not was a failing.
The resident escalated his complaint and continued to raise concerns in June 2023 that the contractor had not removed the cobwebs. In response the landlord said that it would pass his concerns onto its estate services team. It said that the contractor needed to improve its attention to detail during when it attended.
It is noted that the landlord told the resident that it had passed on his concerns to the estate service team. However, we do not have contemporaneous evidence that it did so. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord asked the contractor to resolve the matter at the time. Subsequently, the resident raised further concerns that the contractor continued to not clear the cobwebs when it attended.
Again, there is no evidence that the landlord took any actions on this matter. This was unreasonable, even more so, as it acknowledged that the contractor needed to improve. It would have reasonable for it to have an appropriate monitoring plan in place. This may have gone some way to resolve the matter.
Given that the resident raised his concerns several times, the landlord’s lack of action caused him, time, trouble and distress. In addition, the available evidence does not demonstrate that it kept the resident updated about his concern. That is a further failing.
In its final response, the landlord reiterated that the communal area was more likely to look untidy than if it were cleaned every week. Again, this response demonstrates that the landlord had failed to fully understand the concerns that had been raised. As a result, it missed the opportunity to try to resolve the resident’s concerns at stage 2. The resident’s concerns therefore went unanswered and the landlord missed an opportunity to resolve the matter.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. provide contemporaneous records of its contractor’s cleaning attendance and its estate inspection records. This meant that it failed to demonstrate that the cleaning and its inspections were reasonably and appropriately completed.
2. adequately progress and resolve the resident’s concerns that the contractor did not dust or clear away the cobwebs. It failed to demonstrate that it appropriately passed on the resident’s concerns and asked the contractor to resolve the outstanding tasks.
3. demonstrate that it was reasonably monitoring and reviewing the contractor’s performance, given that it said that it needed to improve its attention to detail.

Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the internal communal cleaning was poor.

We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Service charges

In early March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord about his estimated service charges. He was concerned that the estimated charges had significantly increased. owvrThere is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded at that time. That is a failing.
In April 2023 the resident told the landlord that it had not responded to his service charge enquiry. It is unclear whether the landlord responded at this time. That there is no evidence that the landlord responded to his concerns is unreasonable. Its lack of communication would have caused the resident time, trouble and distress.
The resident reiterated his concerns in his complaint at the end of April 2023. He said that he had contacted the service charge team on 9 March 2023. He also explained that the landlord had increased the service charges for the cleaning and grounds maintenance far above the actual charges for the previous years.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said that the service charges were estimates and the resident would receive the actual service charges costs in September 2024. This response was inadequate. The landlord’s service charge policy stated that one of its objectives was to “enhance” the accuracy of service charges by learning from adjustments made to residents’ service charge statements and estimates. The resident raised concerns about increase of estimated service charges. Therefore this would have been an opportunity for the landlord to have investigated and learnt lessons from the resident’s concerns as stated in its policy. There is no evidence that it did so.
Around the beginning/mid-June 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that he would “have to wait” to receive the actuals for 2022-2023 before he could investigate further how much the contractors would continue to charge for the “continued” poor service.
The evidence available suggests that the landlord called the resident to discuss his service charge enquiry around the same time. This was reasonable. However, the evidence suggests this was the first contact that it made to the resident since he raised his query. This was approximately 3 months after the resident made his initial enquiry in March 2023. While the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is unreasonable. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that the landlord only called the resident once. It is unclear whether it left a voicemail or followed up by contacting the resident by email. Given the circumstances and that the resident had initially emailed it, that the landlord did not take further steps to contact the resident was unreasonable.
In its final complaint response in July 2023, the landlord said that the resident did not provide any further information for it to investigate. Given that it was unable to make contact with the resident in June and that his queries remained unanswered, it missed an opportunity investigate its handling of his query and adequately respond to his query. This meant that the resident’s concerns about the increase of the estimated service charges went unanswered.
Overall the landlord failed to:
1. respond to the resident’s enquiry in a timely manner.
2. reasonably follow up its contact with the resident when it was unable to reach him June 2023.
3. investigate the resident’s concerns in accordance with its service charge policy.

Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that his estimated service charges had increased.

Complaint Handling

On 30 April 2023 the resident made a formal complaint. The acknowledgment letter that has been provided is dated 17 May 2023. This was approximately 2 weeks after the resident had made his complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. This timeframe is also outlined in our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. Furthermore, the acknowledgement letter only refers to the resident’s complaint about service charges. Whether the resident was provided with another acknowledgement letter is unclear. However, if not, the acknowledgement letter that was sent was not entirely accurate and may have led the resident to believe that not all of his concerns would be investigated.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 May 2023. This was approximately 20 working days after the resident raised his complaint. It is noted that the landlord stated in its acknowledgement letter that it would issue its response by 31 May 2023. As previously stated, the evidence suggests the acknowledgement was issued approximately 2 weeks after the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Therefore, while the landlord issued the complaint response in line with its stated deadline, it was unreasonable that it was issued approximately 20 working days from the date of the original complaint.
In its response, the landlord said that internal communal area would look more untidy than it if was cleaned every week. This was in relation to change of frequency of the cleaning from every week to every 2 weeks, which was voted by the residents. The landlord’s response infers that the residents’ decision to choose a fortnightly clean over a weekly cleaned contributed to the untidiness of the communal areas. This was unreasonable. The resident’s complaint was clear. He said that the contractor either did not attend, or attended and did not complete the work satisfactorily. This should have been the focus of the landlord’s response as opposed to simply suggesting that the standard was owing to the change in frequency of cleaning.
It also said that it had carried out an inspection on 10 May 2023 and was satisfied with the contractor’s ground maintenance. Its response was inadequate. The resident’s complaint stated that the new contractors had provided a poor service and that he had evidence to support his comments in his previous emails to the landlord.
The landlord’s policy stated that at stage 1 of its complaints process, it would carry out a full investigation. In addition, our Code states that complaint handlers must act independently and have an open mind as well as consider all information and evidence carefully. It also states a complaint investigation must seek sufficient, reliable information from both parties so that fair and appropriate findings and recommendations can be made. In this case, the landlord referred to one inspection that was carried out after the resident’s complaint. There is no evidence to suggest that it looked into the resident’s previous emails. Had it done so, it would be have been appropriate for them to have been address within the complaint response. The failure to refer to the resident’s evidence would understandably have left him with the impression that it had not been taken into account. Or that the landlord’s investigation into the matter had been limited.
The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns that it still had not updated the noticeboard with the correct task list. Our Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. Given that the resident had consistently raised this issue for approximately 9 months, including in his complaint, that the landlord did not address it in its response was unreasonable.
In response to the resident’s concerns about the service charges, it said the resident should contact the service charge team if he had any further questions. Its response was unreasonable. In his original complaint, the resident told the landlord that he had already raised his concerns with the service charge team in March 2023.
This should have prompted the landlord to investigate whether it had responded to the resident appropriately. Its service charge policy stated that if it failed to respond to a resident’s service charge query it would consider addressing the failure as part of its complaint process. Given that it already had a current complaint open on the matter, that it did not do so in this case is a failing. It missed an opportunity to look into the matter and respond to the resident’s concerns. This caused him further, time, distress and inconvenience.
It is unclear when the resident escalated his complaint. The evidence suggests it was around early/mid-June 2023. Although there is some evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident around or on 16 June 2023. We do not have a contemporaneous record of the correspondence. Therefore it is unclear whether the landlord satisfactorily acknowledged the resident’s escalation request in line with its own policy and the Code.
The evidence suggests that the escalation was not actioned until 17 July 2023. The reason for this is unknown. The landlord issued its final response on 25 July 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would issue its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. In this case, it issued its final response within 32 working days. This was approximately 12 days passed its policy time scales. Therefore, while the reason for the delay is unclear, that there was one is a failing. There is also no evidence that it agreed an extension with the resident as required by its policy, which is a further failing.
In his escalation complaint, the resident explained that his complaint was not about the old contractor, but the new one who he considered had not been attending properly since February 2022. He said the issues had been ongoing for more than 6 months.
In response the landlord said that it would not change its decision. It said that it had checked all the points of the resident’s complaint and responded fairly. It also said that there were no new further points to consider. It reiterated that it would not investigate complaints where a service failure may have occurred more than 6 months prior to a residents’ complaint.
Given the circumstances and its own policy, it would have been reasonable for it to have investigated the resident’s concerns approximately from October 2022. There is no evidence that it had done so. Therefore it failed to reasonably respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy. Furthermore, our Code states if the complaint is about a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this will help to resolve the issue for the resident. In this case, the resident had raised the same issues consistently over a prolonged period of time. Therefore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to use its discretion and consider a full investigation into the matter. That it did not was a missed opportunity.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it carried out a meaningful review of its stage 1 response. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s response and explained why. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed his concerns in its response. That it did not was a failing.
Overall the landlord failed to:
1. acknowledge and respond to the resident’s stage 1 response within its own policy timescales.
2. meaningfully investigate the resident’s complaint at stage 1 in accordance with its policy and the Code.
3. address all of the resident’s specific concerns.
4. progress the resident’s escalated complaint in a timely manner.
5. carry out a meaningful review of the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its complaint process.
Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for its complaint handling failures and “customer effort”. However, the award amount is not proportionate, given the complaint failings highlighted in this case. Therefore, further compensation has been ordered in recognition of this.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.
The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met.
In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the standard of the grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the standard of the internal communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns that the estimated service charges had increased.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £750 compensation. Comprised of:
  1. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of grounds maintenance.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the standard of the internal communal cleaning.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s concerns about the increase of his estimated service charges.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint response, if it has not already done so.
4. the landlord should contact the resident to:
  1. ascertain whether he has any current concerns about the standard of communal cleaning and grounds maintenance.
  2. If he does, the landlord should confirm its position. Where it acknowledges that improvements should be made, it must agree an action plan with the resident to resolve the matters with the resident. It should provide a copy to this Service.
5. the landlord should contact the resident to discuss any outstanding concerns he has about his service charges queries outlined in this investigation. It should provide a written response to his queries and provide a copy to this Service.