Lambeth Council (202115517)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115517

Lambeth Council

23 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns in relation to paying service charges for services not being provided or not being provided to a satisfactory level related to:
  1. CCTV monitoring and footage request;
  2. Cleaning, window cleaning and ground maintenance of the estate;
  3. Major works.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns of a service charge increase.
3. Relevant communication and complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
In this case, the resident had raised a number of issues related to service charges. In April 2021, the resident explained that her service charges had increased. She also stated that for some services like the CCTV she was not getting “value for money”. In a further correspondence from November 2021, the resident asked why her service charges were different from the ones her neighbours were paying or why they were different for the different blocks.
Paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme further states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern level of rent or service charge or service charge increase.
In this case certain parts of the resident’s complaint were related to the reasonableness of the CCTV charges, the overall increase of service charges, including their proportion and why they were different for the different blocks on the estate. These would most effectively be decided upon by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which could potentially make a legally binding decision about the service charge liability, increase and reasonableness.
As such, the resident’s complaint related to the service charge reasonableness, increase or overall level is outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident would like to pursue this further, she could contact the Leasehold Advisory Service.
Whilst the Ombudsman cannot consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges nor whether the amount being charged is reasonable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about specific charges and the services provided in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord has acted fairly, given all the circumstances of a case, whether it has put right and identified service failures and, where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint so as to improve its overall service delivery.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom flat, situated on the fourth floor of a building owned and managed by the landlord.
The lease sets out the contract between the parties. The landlord is obligated to maintain the common parts of the estate. The resident is obligated to pay a proportion of the service charge, including costs reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect to the maintenance and services it provides in respect of the common parts of the building. The service charge is variable, and the leaseholder is asked to pay towards estimated costs, for which excesses or deficits are consolidated every year.
Part 1 and 2 of the Fourth Schedule of the lease includes the services related to the cleaning, repairs and maintenance of the common parts. In the further Homeowner’s Guide, the landlord states that some blocks are provided with CCTV to help residents’ security. The charge for CCTV is calculated based on the yearly contract cost of CCTV service and the number of cameras serving the estate. The cost is then apportioned using the rateable value. A charge for the CCTV provision will be received every year. The CCTV charge covers:
1. system costs;
2. repairs to the system during the year, and;
3. a proportion of the staff costs for monitoring the system.
The cleaning charge is calculated on the yearly contract cost. As this is known in advance, the estimate residents receive will be based on the actual cost of the contract. The contract terms means that the contract will increase each year. The contractors carry out sweeping and litter picking on estates; bulk rubbish removal on estates; cleaning and mopping of communal areas in blocks; lift cleaning; periodic deep cleaning of rubbish chutes and bin chambers; graffiti removal.
The contract for communal widow cleaning states that any communal windows should be cleaned quarterly, including the inside of all communal windows and the outside of all communal windows up to the block’s third floor. The contract does not cover the windows of individual properties. The contract quality is monitored, and spot checked by the Estate Services team.
The grounds maintenance includes cutting the grass regularly during the growing season; maintaining any shrubs and bushes in the communal gardens; maintaining any flowerbeds in the communal gardens. The maintenance schedule for the estate is to be posted in the entrance hallway of the building. This charge covers the maintenance of the communal gardens and grassed areas on estates. It would usually cut the grass every six weeks, but this may be affected by bad weather. The estimate is calculated using the total contract cost, apportioned using the property’s rateable value.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it has an early resolution process where it will try to resolve a complaint straight away. If the resident requires a written response or remains dissatisfied with the early resolution attempt, a formal complaint will be raised. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. At both stages it aims to respond within 20 working days.
In line with its compensation policy, the landlord may decide that the payment of financial compensation is appropriate to remedy a service failure that has an adverse effect on the complainant. Refunds should always be considered where an investigating officer finds that a customer has paid for a poor service, unreasonably delayed service or a service that has not been provided. A refund may also be offered as a goodwill gesture to resolve a complaint.
On 5 June 2020, following an alleged offence to her vehicle from the same day, the resident requested CCTV footage from the landlord. She explained that she had contacted the police and provided a crime reference and a brief description of the alleged perpetrators and their car. On 9 June 2020, she chased up the landlord for the CCTV footage and explained which camera was positioned in the direction to the incident. She also stated that the police had visited her and had requested that she chase the landlord for the footage.
In July 2020, the resident contacted her councillor and asked for further assistance in obtaining the CCTV footage. The councillor responded that he was no longer in post and forwarded the email to their successor. There is no evidence of any response from the landlord about the footage.
On 19 April 2021 in correspondence to the landlord, the resident raised a few queries:
1. The estimated bill for 2021/2022 service charges had risen by 40% but the cleaning and maintenance services had been considerably reduced due to the pandemic, which was not reflected. Some of the services served her “no purpose”. She asked for an explanation of the increase.
2. Window cleaning service appeared on the service charge bill, but no window cleaning was happening at the building.
3. The resident’s vehicle had been previously damaged which had costed her £750. The cameras on the estate for which she paid 10% of the service charges, were positioned to capture the incident. However, when she had requested the footage, she had not received any assistance. This had not been the first incident when the cameras had been “no use” to her or her neighbours. She did not want to pay for this service any longer as the cameras did not have a deterrent effect and residents, the landlord and the police were not able to use them for enforcement action.
4. The resident wanted to be refunded for the cost of cleaning and ground maintenance during the pandemic. She also requested to be refunded the CCTV charges for the past years as they “were not what they should be”.
5. The resident felt that the landlord was using the pandemic as an opportunity to “capitalise financially on the wider community when each position should have been challenged individually” so that people were not pushed into debt and distress.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord responded to each of the resident’s issues as follows:
1. The previous year service charges were based on estimates and any reduction in spend on the block would be factored into the actual service charge. The resident was billed as per the covenants in her lease.
2. The landlord contacted its senior neighbourhood officer, and they confirmed that the block had a window cleaning service, and the next window cleaning was scheduled for May 2021.
3. The landlord had talked to the CCTV team. It asked the resident to provide hers or her neighbours’ crime reference numbers, including the dates of the incidents. It also stated that the CCTV services were rechargeable in accordance with the covenants of her lease and provided details of what they covered as per its Homeowner’s Guide.
4. It explained the cleaning and the ground maintenance were carried out to a set schedule and confirmed what services were included as per its Homeowner’s Guide. It also explained that grounds maintenance related to grass cutting was reliant on weather conditions.
5. The landlord disagreed that the pandemic had been used as an opportunity to capitalise financially on the wider landlord’s community. It said it had no intention to push people into debt and distress. It again explained how the estimate of charges were calculated. It did not provide any reports or schedule of services during the pandemic.
The resident responded on 28 April 2021, and provided details of the incident with her car that took place on 5 June 2020 and the camera which was positioned in the direction of the incident. She also raised concerns about:
1. The estimated service charge calculation and its increase. She explained that she had paid £1104.88 for 2020/2021 which was a monthly payment of £92.00 and this had gone now for 2021/2022 to £136.00. She had previously received confusing information about her service charge calculation from the landlord’s frontline staff.
2. The purpose for the CCTV and whether the cameras offer “value for money”. The resident wanted a breakdown of the camera services and its cost for the estate and the blocks. She also asked for the effectiveness of the cameras to be assessed as it had not proved a deterrent for ASB, fly tipping and criminal activity.
3. She asked to see the schedule of the window cleaning as she had not seen any window cleaning being done. However, she said that she had recently seen a member of the landlord’s staff with the window cleaning contractor. She believed that services had to be “physically monitored” like in this case so that the landlord ensured their performance.
The resident chased a response in May 2021 and the landlord advised that it was awaiting information from the service providing teams. It sent its response on 3 June 2021. It apologised for the delay and responded against each point the resident raised. It said:
1. The CCTV service was split into 2 categories – the block CCTV cameras which overlooked the streets, and the estate CCTV cameras which were directed only at the entrance of the buildings. It had reviewed the resident’s service charges and had identified that she was only contributing to the estate CCTV and as such could not receive the benefit of the block cameras. Despite this, it had tried to receive the footage of the incident but had been told that footage was only kept for a period of 30 days.
2. It confirmed the service charges for the last year had been £1104.88. However, the increase was due to the latest set of service charge actuals for 2019/2020 of £299.10. When the 2021/2022 service charges estimates were calculated it factored in this increase. It confirmed that when it calculated the estimates each year it used the last set of service charge actuals as a guideline. Should the costs for 2021/2022 witness a reduction in spend then the resident would receive a credit back. It apologised that the resident might not have received clear information about the interpretation of the service charge system. It informed her that it had previously trained its staff and committed to further training if the resident could provide any names of the staff members.
3. It provided the total cost of CCTV for the estate. It said the street view CCTV were monitored 24/7 but this did not cover her block. Any relevant footage was provided to the police upon request, and it was unable to confirm the volume of such incidents. It also provided information of how the resident could request footage in the future.
4. The windows had last been cleaned in February 2021. The window cleaning contract was only for the communal windows and the cost only covered such charges. It would request further monitoring of the window cleaning services.
5. The landlord would enquire whether cameras facing the street could be provided and installed as part of future major works in order to reduce crime.
The resident responded on the next day dissatisfied with the information provided about the CCTV, the number of cameras and the calculation of their costs to which the landlord responded on 5 June 2021 to each point as follows:
1. The CCTV team had said that there were 6 cameras situated upon the estate with a cost of £14,516.53 for the financial year 2019/2020. It did not have a detailed breakdown but informed the resident that 73.40% of this was for monitoring and 26.60% was for maintenance. The cost of this service was apportioned between all the properties on the estate.
2. No CCTV works were included within the major works or installed as part of the major works contract, as the proposal of these had been rejected by the residents.
3. The 6 cameras were positioned to face the doors, but as there were 13 block entrance doors as per the resident’s reports, it would further investigate and remedy where necessary so that all were positioned correctly to cover the entrances.
4. It was difficult to assess value for money, but it would look into performing an exercise that could indicate the level of crime before and after the cameras had been installed.
5. With regards to the resident requesting reassurance that for the entire time the cameras were erected they had assisted the landlord to prevent some activities related to ASB and crime, the landlord said that footage was available for the housing officers to request in case of an incident.
6. A record of incidents did not exist at the time. However, there was a review carried out of the cameras. At that stage, the cameras were there to provide reassurance to residents. The landlord however stated that the cameras had been at the estate for so long that it was possible for perpetrators to know their position and as such easily avoid them.
The resident made a formal complaint on 13 August 2021. She felt that the landlord’s response to the complaint she had raised 3 months ago was not sufficient. She stated that the information it had provided for the number of cameras and their position had changed a few times. She was dissatisfied that she had not received a breakdown of the different components of the service charges for the CCTV. She was unhappy that there was not any audit trail of any incidents in which the cameras had been used to help prevent or enforce crime or ASB since their installation. The resident confirmed her concerns “stemmed from the cost-of-service charges”. She was dissatisfied that the CCTV team failed to provide accurate answers. The landlord provided information on how the resident could raise a complaint on 18 August 2021.
In her email of formal complaint from 27 August 2021, the resident said:
1. She had experienced poor communication with the housing management and often had to involve senior staff and councillors to receive a reasonable response from the landlord.
2. She sought a refund of the service charges paid towards the CCTV on the estate as it was not meeting any of its objectives in relation to prevention, enforcement or prosecution of trespassing, ASB and criminality.
On 1 October 2021, the resident reported an increase in ASB related to drug use. The resident reported the issue to the police, but she was also of the opinion that the landlord should use the CCTV on the estate to address the ASB.
On 7 October 2021, the resident contacted the Ombudsman due to a lack of response from the landlord. This Service chased a response the same day and on 26 October 2021 the landlord acknowledged the request of this service and committed to send a response by 9 November 2021.
In November 2021, the resident raised further concerns to the landlord about her service charge final bill and invoice 916544290. She further wrote to the landlord in December 2021. She said:
1. She had discussed the bill with other neighbours. She was concerned that each block had individually calculated final service charges while previous statements had reflected the whole estate. She identified that her block had been charged several hundreds of pounds more than the neighbouring blocks. She asked for a breakdown of charges for all 5 buildings in the estate.
2. She had concerns with a few job numbers related to major works on the estate that she was billed for:
  1. Job Number 2831384/1 which appears to relate to works in a private bathroom.
  2. Job 2610314/1 which was an outstanding repair. If not, she asked the landlord to explain where it had been completed.
  3. Job 2676758/1 which was not completed. The resident asked for evidence of completion and where this job had taken place.
  4. Job 2605929/1 related to fire door signs, which the resident reported had been glued rather than screwed as per description.
  5. Job 2610314/1 repair to the gutter. There was still an ongoing issue with the gutter, so the resident did not believe this to be completed.
3. Due to her concerns of jobs being raised incorrectly, the resident asked for a copy of the last 4 years of general maintenance works for the estate.
This Service further chased the landlord on 22 December 2021 and in January 2022. On 10 January 2022, in internal correspondence, the landlord’s contractor stated that their job watch inspections and work schedules for communal cleaning, window cleaning and ground maintenance were not in place at the time. It provided the inspections from 8 June 2021 onwards.
On 11 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to her complaint from 27 November 2021. However, this communication did not have any requisites of a formal complaint response. It explained that her service charges were based on the rateable value dictated within the lease agreement and provided a leaflet how it calculated them. It said as the lease was unique to her, the value of the service charges would not be the same as for other leaseholders. It also said as follows:
1. It provided the schedule of works for the ground maintenance and the windows cleaning from June 2021 onwards. It also explained that there were no watch inspections and work schedules in place at the time.
2. With regards to the maintenance works concerned:
  1. Charge for job 2831384/1 would be removed and credited back to the resident’s service charge account.
  2. Job 2807229/1 was performed to the boiler and service pipes, and as such was chargeable.
  3. Job 2610314/1 was about waterproofing of bricks and as such chargeable.
  4. Job 2676758/1 was about roofing job for any cracks on the flat surface.
  5. For job 2610314/1, it was awaiting further clarity as it was related not only to bricks waterproofing but external windows and doors.
3. It provided a copy of the final bills for the last 5 years for her property but due to data protection would not provide any for other properties.
4. Any ASB concerns should be reported to the police, and it would not investigate these allegations further.
5. It would send her a letter with adjustments following the removal of the above-mentioned repair form her bill.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord issued a formal stage 1 response about the CCTV issue raised on 27 August 2021. It said:
1. It partly upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays in providing a complaint response and apologised for it. It provided a summary of the previous correspondence and reiterated the previously provided apology for the delays in responding to her queries.
2. The CCTV system was in place for:
  1. surveillance for environmental crimes.
  2. community reassurance.
  3. low level ASB external to blocks.
  4. requests by the housing team, councillors or tenant resident associations.
3. The cameras were unable to capture everything, they were not re-deployable and could only capture footage in the area where they were placed.
4. The charges reflect the fact that the service existed, and the landlord considered their level reasonable.
5. It could not review level of charges under its complaints policy and advised the resident if she wished to raise a dispute about the charges to submit an application with the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) under section 27a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
6. It advised the resident that damage to cars was a criminal offence. As such, such matters should be reported to the police who could request footage which the landlord held for only 30 days. Due to data protection, it could not provide any footage to residents.
7. It further explained that the incident with the resident’s car had taken place in June 2020, and she had requested footage in April 2021. Hence, the footage had not been available. The cameras were recording for 24 hours but unless specifically tasked, the officer would not look into the estate in real time.
8. The landlord advised that there had been evidence of fly tipping but not on a severe scale on the estate and that evidence of drug dealing had been minimal over the last six months. No statistics or other evidence were provided to the resident.
On 17 February 2022, the resident requested a review of her complaint. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the lack of response to how her service charges had been calculated. She asked the landlord to respond to the following queries:
1. Explain the justification of the CCTV charge.
2. How monitoring charge of the CCTV was calculated.
3. How many cameras was the staff monitoring and what charges were applied for this service.
4. For which cameras were the monitoring charges applied to.
5. If a crime was committed within the cover of the cameras and the landlord was not able to provide the footage to be used by the police what was the use of the cameras.
6. The fire door signs were not fitted correctly. They had been stuck on and not screwed as the signs were designed to be.
7. The resident requested a recalculation of the service charges as per her comments including what the landlord had already identified in its email of 11 January 2022.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 8 March 2022. It said:
1. It apologised for the inconvenience that complaining about the issues had caused.
2. The car damage was a matter for the Criminal Justice System. If the police identified any perpetrators as residents the landlord would then take further action. Alternatively, the tenancy enforcement team might have taken action if the resident provided substantiating evidence and details of the perpetrator.
3. It reiterated what the CCTV provisions involved as per its response of 26 April 2021 and its stage 1 response. It said that it had been unfortunate that the resident’s vehicle had been damaged but this was outside of the area covered by CCTV area.
4. It further advised the resident how to report ASB and provided a list of the local police activity survey on Safer Neighbourhoods Team (SNT).
5. It referred the resident to contact the Local Government Ombudsman, if not satisfied with the complaint.
Following the landlord’s final response:
1. In April 2022, the resident reported further issues with other cars being broken into and some “loitering” on the estate. She requested that the landlord use the CCTV to help capture those individuals. The landlord responded that depending on the type of cameras, the viewing angle might not sufficiently capture any activity. It would request a review of the footage. It also said that it would increase the patrolling of the SNT. The resident raised her concerns that in the past this had not helped due to the cameras positioning. She said the cameras had failed to assist in the police enquiries and had been of no use to the residents when there had been previous car thefts and injuries.
2. On 26 May 2022, the landlord sent to the resident an outstanding payment reminder related to service charges. The resident responded on 30 May 2022. She said:
  1. She had a case for the disputed service charges with the Ombudsman.
  2. She had not got an outcome on the cleaning issue, CCTV, grounds maintenance and the fire door sign job which had not been completed properly.
3. In June 2022, the landlord responded that it was awaiting further information form the repairs and cleaning team. There is no evidence of any further correspondence in relation to those issues.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of services not being provided or not provided to a satisfactory level.

This service will look into the landlord’s response to the individual service charge issues raised by the resident related to CCTV services, window cleaning, ground maintenance, and works to the estate. This service will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling. In considering the landlord’s response, this service has taken into account the information provided about any breakdown and calculation of those charges. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s response in relation to the resident’s reports of services not being provided or any errors in the major jobs’ application and billing. In doing so the Ombudsman has reviewed the correspondence between the landlord and the resident for the period from June 2020 until the landlord’s final response of March 2022, the inspection reports and works schedule of the estate provided for 2021 and 2022, information about estimated bills and final bills for the years 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.

Response to the concerns raised in relation to CCTV services.

As stated above this service is limited when investigating particular service charges issues related to their liability and reasonableness. The resident’s concerns about the value for money and the review of service charge reasonableness do not form part of this investigation. However, the Ombudsman can investigate the landlord’s response to those concerns raised by the resident related to the CCTV footage request and information provided for the breakdown of the components of the CCTV charges.
The resident requested to see the CCTV footage immediately after the incident to her car on 5 June 2020. She subsequently chased the landlord on numerous occasions in June and then in July 2020, and then contacted her councillor for further assistance. She explained clearly to the landlord the details of the incident and provided a crime reference number. There is no evidence that her request was responded to or that the landlord provided such footage to her or the police. At a later stage, and in April 2021 the landlord demonstrated that by having the same information provided by the resident it was able to assist further, although at that stage, it was late as the footage was only retained for 30 days.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge her request in June or July 2020 and explain if it was only able to supply CCTV recordings to the police. This service does not have the expertise to explore what could have happened if the landlord had responded to the resident or had provided the information to the police upon the resident’s request. However, it is evident that the landlord did not do so. It could not demonstrate that after having the crime reference it liaised with the police or provided any response to the resident. As such the resident lost an opportunity to have the incident further investigated. This was unreasonable and not a customer orientated approach.
In April 2021 when she raised the CCTV service charge concerns and requested a breakdown of the CCTV charges, the landlord informed her that it would assist her with the footage. It subsequently explained to her that the footage was only held for 30 days before being destroyed. This was a considerable delay in responding to her request from June 2020.
In its stage one response, the landlord summarised that the incident happened in June 2020 and the resident requested a footage on 28 April 2021, outside of the 30 days period footages were retained. However, this service has seen evidence that the resident requested the footage as early as the day of the incident and chased this further. The landlord failed to acknowledge this fact and as such failed to put things right for the resident.
Additionally, at stage 1 the landlord said that due to data protection no CCTV footage was provided to residents. In its stage 2 response, it stated that the car incident had happened outside of the CCTV covered area. Whilst it is appreciated that due to data protection, the landlord would not have been able to provide such information to the resident, it could not demonstrate that it had taken any action following her request. It did not liaise with the resident or police to provide the footage or at least responded to the resident’s query.
The resident is paying for this service and had reasonable expectation that it would assist when she needed it. Despite raising her request in a timely manner, the landlord’s response was outside the 30-day window, so any footage was no longer available. The landlord ought to have at least made prompt enquiries of the CCTV system to see if there was anything it could do. However, its failure to do so contributed to the resident’s confusion as to the purpose of the costs she was paying for.
Furthermore, when requested the landlord failed to provide a breakdown of charges related to the CCTV. As such it was reasonable that the resident felt the landlord’s services for which she had been paying were not provided upon request and when she needed them most.
The landlord’s overall response was inconsistent and was not reassuring as to the role of the CCTV and its deterrent purpose. It also stated that the charges apply to reflect the fact that the cameras existed. However, at the same time it said they were in place for community reassurance, for housing team requests and low level ASB external to the blocks. As such, this service is not satisfied as to how clear the landlord’s response was or how thorough its investigation was into the incident and the resident’s concerns.

Response to reports of reduced services to cleaning and ground maintenance and no window cleaning services.

In April 2021, the resident requested more information on the service charge increase and reported that services throughout the pandemic had been reduced, and some window cleaning and ground maintenance had not been performed. The landlord was responsive to the resident while it was gathering the information and provided a detailed response in April 2021 and subsequently in June 2021. It apologised for the delay in its responses and reiterated the apology at stage 1 of 11 January 2022. The landlord’s response provided clear information of how the service charges are estimated each year. This service is satisfied that the information provided was clear and that support to understand the calculation was offered to the resident. The landlord was also committed to train its staff further in order for the officers to provide accurate information about the service charge system. This was reasonable and demonstrated a customer orientated approach.
However, in terms of the actual services for the period of the pandemic, which the resident raised as a concern, it did not provide any clear information. It provided the schedule of works from June 2021, but no data was provided prior to this period. With regards to the window cleaning, it only said that the last window cleaning had been performed in February 2021. As such the landlord could not evidence that it had a system in place to monitor the services during the pandemic or that it had investigated the resident’s concerns.
Whilst the landlord had not clearly communicated to the resident its investigation, when assessing its action, this service has taken into account the situation during the pandemic and the difficulties the landlords were facing during it, particularly in regard to contractors, workforce and performance of works. Whilst the pandemic should not be used as an opportunity to reduce services or not provide them, it is a mitigating circumstance in this case. However, if there was a reduction of service reported during the pandemic, the landlord should effectively investigate and identify any issues. The landlord, however, failed to do so. It could not demonstrate that it had taken appropriate action to discuss the issues with the services providers, identify any change in services required or put things right for the resident.
The landlord did take measures to monitor the services, and this was evidenced in the schedules and inspections reports provided after June 2021. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to review the provision of services and whether they were reduced or not provided at all during the pandemic. An order has been made for the landlord to investigate further the cleaning and ground maintenance services provided on the estate during the pandemic. If its investigation identifies any issues or that refunds are necessary, these should be forwarded to all residents affected.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of major works billing and the works quality.

The resident was also dissatisfied with the quality of the services involving the fire door signs and said that she was overcharged for jobs which were not communal but rather private. Whilst the landlord acknowledged that it wrongfully applied a charge for a private job and refunded the resident, the other issues were not addressed in their entirety. The landlord failed to response to the issue of the fire door signs. Additionally, in its response of 11 January 2022, it stated that it had been awaiting “further clarity” on job number 2610314/1. However, this service has seen no evidence that any information about the job was provided to the resident.

Overall response to the service provision concerns.

In summary, the number of failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about provisions of services, their reduction and quality amounted to maladministration. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s request for footage or provide information on the CCTV footage when she had requested it following the car incident. Additionally, in its responses, it did not acknowledge its failure to respond and as such missed an opportunity to put thing right for her. It did not provide further information on the breakdown of the different components of the CCTV. It could not evidence that it investigated the cleaning and ground maintenance for the pandemic period when the resident reported a reduction of services. It did not provide any explanation as to the quality of works to the fire door signs. Additionally, it failed to address the repair in its final response and as such it did not take the opportunity to review its handling and put things right for the resident. In addition to an order to investigate further the provision of during the pandemic, this service has ordered compensation of £550 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases involving maladministration over a protracted period.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident raised her concerns in April 2021. While this was not labelled as a formal complaint it was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction. Following the landlord’s response of June 2021, the following day she emailed and expressed her dissatisfaction with the answers provided. The landlord failed to raise those concerns as a formal complaint and did not respond to them in line with its policy. As such, it delayed its process and the opportunity for the resident to receive earlier resolution.
In August 2021, she raised a formal complaint about the response to her queries. The landlord responded to the cleaning, maintenance and major jobs issues on 11 January 2022 and to the CCTV issues on 1 February 2022, over five months from the date of the complaint being raised. This was outside the timescales of its complaints policy and caused further delays and frustration to the resident.
Whilst the stage two response was provided in a timely manner, the landlord failed to address some of the main issues the resident had raised, namely:
1. How many cameras were there in the estate.
2. Evidence of how the cameras were used and whether they assisted in prosecutions.
3. How the cost of the cameras monitoring was calculated.
4. If the major jobs related to the fire door signs were of good quality.
5. How the cleaning and ground maintenance was assessed during the pandemic and immediately after it.
By failing to address some of the main parts of the resident’s complaint, the landlord failed to provide reassurance that it had thoroughly investigated the complaint and took the opportunity to put things right for her. Additionally, while it committed to further investigate some of the issues, it did not demonstrate that it had done so. There is no evidence of any further clarification on the major job issue following the end of the landlord’s complaints process.
For the above reasons there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Compensation of £250 has been ordered in recognition of the time and trouble the resident experienced for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
It is also noted that the landlord’s complaints policy allows 20 days for a response at stage one, whereas the Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (CHC) recommends that at stage one the landlord should respond within 10 working days. This has been previously raised with the landlord and a further recommendation has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the resident’s concerns about the increase and reasonableness of service charges falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. Its response to the resident’s concerns about paying service charges for services not being provided or not being provided to a satisfactory level related to:
  1. CCTV monitoring and footage request.
  2. Cleaning, window cleaning and ground maintenance of the estate;
  3. Major works.
2. Associated complaint handling.

Reasons

The reasonableness, any justification or increase of service charges is an issue outside the jurisdictional scope of the Ombudsman and more effectively dealt with by the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).
However, the service considered the information provided about the service charges and their provision. The landlord’s communication in response to the service charge queries was poor. It was delayed considerably. It did not provide a response to the timely request about the CCTV footage. When this was further raised it failed to provide accurate information and any breakdown of the CCTV components.
It did not provide clear answers to the job repair related to the fire door signs, the schedule of services during the pandemic and immediately after it. Additionally, it failed to address those issues in its final response and as such take the opportunity to review its handling and put things right for the resident.
Its stage 1 responses were considerably delayed and at stage 2, it failed to address all the aspects of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £800 compensation, comprising of:
  1. £550 in recognition of the stress and inconvenience she experienced by its failures to respond to her service charges queries.
  2. £250 in recognition for the time and trouble the resident experience by the landlord’s failures in complaint handling.
3. Conduct an investigation into the provision of window cleaning, cleaning and ground maintenance services during the pandemic and if it identifies any issues of reduced services or lack of any services during this period to issue a refund to the resident, and to all other residents affected. A copy of this investigation to be provided to this service and the resident.
4. Conduct an investigation into the quality of the fire safety door signs and provide its findings to this service and the resident.
5. Conduct a review of its processes for overseeing the work of contractors and implement any necessary changes identified as a result of that review. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman, setting out its findings and the action it intends to take.
6. Write to the resident providing a detailed description of each of the charges included in the breakdown of her current service charge, including the area of the estate to which those services relate. If it has not already done so, the landlord should confirm what the charge for CCTV is including the number of cameras included in the service charges, the CCTV monitoring charges and how they are calculated.

Recommendations

Review its policy to respond to the requirements of the Ombudsman CHC of 10 days response at stage 1.
Provide training to staff to ensure timely responses and that all complaint points are addressed in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response.