Jigsaw Homes Group Limited (202201661)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201661

Jigsaw Homes Group Limited

15 November 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management of the intercom services, including their request for a refund.

Background

2. The resident, who is a leaseholder, lives in an apartment block that requires visitors press a buzzer so that they could be let in. The system had the capability to verify the identity of the visitor with a contractor acting as a concierge. in order to gain access to the building. Prior to making a formal complaint, the resident had raised an informal complaint with the landlord in which he raised concerns that the contractor was not verifying the visitors’ identity with the resident prior to allowing access, as the resident believed it should have been.
3. The investigation found that the contractor was fulfilling its contractual obligations. On 19 October 2021, the resident made a formal complaint, in which he raised the same concerns. He also noted that several homeless people were entering the building and causing nuisance. The outcome that the resident sought from the complaint, was reimbursement of a portion of his service charge, as he felt that he was paying said service charge for a service that he was not receiving.
4. The landlord’s final response on 21 April 2022 reiterated its earlier stance that the contractor had been fulfilling its contractual obligations, and that verification checks were not an explicit part of the service standards that had been formally agreed with the contractor. However, it did advise that verification checks were expected. The landlord advised that there was no evidence to suggest that the contractor was not delivering services that the resident was paying for and as such, there were no grounds for the service charges to be refunded. The resident told this Service that he was unsatisfied as he believed he was paying (and had paid) for a service that he was not receiving.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management of the intercom services, including their request for a refund

5. As the resident felt that he was paying for a Service that he was not receiving, this investigation looks to determine whether or not the service being provided was in line with the contractor’s obligations, and whether or not the obligations and features of the service being provided had been made clear to the resident.
6. The landlord made contact with the contractor several times to determine what the exact responsibilities were. The landlord’s investigation into the matter found that the contract between the landlord and the contractor did not explicitly say that verification checks were to be carried out through the use of the intercom system. [EF1]The contractor was only required to ensure that an audio link to the resident’s apartment was made available, and that the contractor itself was to act as a concierge and to provide a door monitoring service. [EF2]
7. The audio link was provided in the form of a handset that was kept in the resident’s apartment. The landlord ensured that this was checked by an electrician to confirm that it was in working order as the working audio link was a service that the contractor was obligated to provide. It was also confirmed that door monitoring was in progress as visitors were still required to be ‘buzzed’ in by the concierge. Given that the contractual obligations were being met by the contractor, the landlord was required to continue paying the contractor in full for its service. This meant that it was reasonable for the landlord not to agree to reimbursing the resident for the portion of his service charge payments that contributed to the concierge and door monitoring service.
8. Although no copy of the contract between the landlord and the contractor has been provided, the resident’s service charge statements have been given. These statements outline that the resident was paying for “The annual cost of CCTV and door entry monitoring 24 hours a day”. It is not disputed that the door entry monitoring was in practise.
9. Whilst the intercom service was not a contractual obligation, the landlord had made it clear to the resident on several occasions that it was an “expectation” of the contractor. This was further reinforced by the landlord’s investigation into the matter. Although the landlord’s investigation into whether or not the verification checks were taking place was thorough, it caused confusion as it implied that the contractor was required to do them.
10. For example, it asked the resident on multiple occasions to provide examples of instances in which visitors were let into the building without the implementation of the intercom service. Additionally, the landlord also offered to conduct spot-checks at the resident’s availability in order to determine whether the contractor was implementing the intercom service. It is clear that most of the landlord’s investigation, even after identifying that there was no contractual obligation for the verification checks, revolved around the contractor’s meeting of these expectations.
11. This caused confusing and contradicting outcomes and showed a communication issue both internally and externally. The landlord’s assertation that the verification checks were an “expectation” contributed to the resident’s view that he was paying for a service that he was not receiving. Additionally, prior to providing its complaint responses, the landlord seemed to have been under the impression that the contractor was obliged to provide the checks.
12. However, in its final response the landlord confirmed that the checks were not “in the service standards formally agreed” with the contractor, yet it still maintained that it “expected” the contractor to carry out said checks. The determination given to the resident was not clear or definitive, and reinforced the idea that the checks should have been carried out.
13. The landlord should have made clear that this was not the case. The landlord has a duty to provide clarity to the resident, as it is fundamentally important for the resident to be made fully aware of what services he is paying for. There is a staunch difference between contractual obligations and encouraged/expected services. The landlord’s investigation into the matter potentially blurred the lines from the perception of the resident, as it continually insisted that the contractor should be carrying out the checks.
14. Additionally, it should have not required an extensive investigation into the matter, as the landlord is expected to have the details and obligations of the services that it employs readily available. Had the landlord been aware of the contractor’s obligations from the outset, it would have been in a position to advise the resident clearly. The landlord not being fully aware of the obligations itself simply added to the confusion and time taken to investigate the complaint. This caused unnecessary involvement by the resident and added to the inconvenience caused.
15. Whilst the landlord’s investigation added confusion in regards to the contractor’s obligations, it did appropriately address and acknowledge the resident’s concerns regarding his security. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that a “rough sleeper” person had accessed the building and had caused anti-social behaviour (ASB). It confirmed that the concierge had not granted access to the person and that said person had been “tailgating” other genuine residents as the entered the building.
16. The landlord also demonstrated how it aimed to minimise this from happening in the future. It noted that it had given advice to encourage residents not to allow other people into the building, as well as displaying posters in lifts to reinforce this advice. It also advised that it had employed a security company to patrol the block to prevent unwanted visitors from gaining access. These actions were appropriate and reasonable given the troubles that the resident had highlighted regarding the building’s general security. The safety and security of its residents should always be the top priority of a landlord, and through these actions, it demonstrated that it took the resident’s concerns seriously, and acted upon them in an appropriate fashion.
17. It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the resident was not entitled to reimbursement of the service charge that paid for the concierge service. It showed that the contractor had acted in line with its contractual obligations, and therefore appropriately justified why the service charge should remain in place. However, there was service failure by the landlord in its communication with its contractor and the resident. The landlord clearly added to the confusion and disappointment suffered by the resident as it was unaware of the contractor’s contractual obligations.
18. Additionally, by consistently explaining that it expected the contractor to maintain verification checks, it contradicted its own findings and did not provide a clear outcome and decision for the resident. This caused stress and inconvenience, and as mentioned, necessitated unnecessary involvement by the resident. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was stress and inconvenience, and disappointment caused but “may not have affected the overall outcome of the complaint”, a payment of £100 would be reasonable.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the management of the intercom services, including their request for a refund.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

20. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £100 in recognition of the detriment and confusion caused through its poor communication. This is to be paid within four weeks of this investigation. 

Recommendations

21. It is recommended that the landlord provides refresher training to ensure that relevant staff are aware of the service obligations that are to be provided by its contractors.

[EF1]Does this sentence make sense? What’s the stuff in brackets? Is it a note for you to expand further, or..?

[EF2]This doesn’t seem to be a complete sentence