London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202000464)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000464

London & Quadrant H T

27 January 2021

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:
   1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal areas of the building the property is situated in, specifically whether repairs were being carried out properly and/or were necessary;
   2. the level of service charge increases.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. The resident has complained about an increase in service charge overall and about specific charges for certain aspects of repairs and maintenance to communal areas. He has complained about the quality of the service offered by the landlord in relation to the associated charges levied.
4. The Scheme states that this Service will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern:
   1. the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase (paragraph 39(g));
   2. matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure (paragraph 39(i)).
5. The First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber considers disputes relating to service charges. It can decide who is responsible for paying charges, when they are payable, whether the expenditure was reasonably incurred and, if so, whether the standard of any work charged for was reasonable. As a result, and in accordance with paragraph 39(g) and (i), as set out above, this part of the complaint is not addressed further in this investigation report. However, the Ombudsman is able to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of repairs service provided.

Background and summary of events

6. During March 2020 the resident raised a number of queries with the landlord about his service charge. He questioned whether the reserve fund could be used to pay towards his charges. In the landlord’s response of 19 March 2020 it explained that the reserve could not be used in this way as its purpose was to save towards the cost of major works so that when they took place the resident was not suddenly presented with a large bill. It explained that contributions were estimated based upon the anticipated life expectancy of components of the building and their replacement costs. It confirmed that, for the service charge year 20/21 the reserve had been increased by 2% to keep it in line with inflation.
7. On 25 March 2020, the resident emailed the landlord again, stating that he had considered the service charges further and, in his view, there was evidence of repeat attendances for the same problems with the lift and the front doors to the building. He reported speaking to the landlord’s contractor who came to fix the door and was told the problem was with poor design in the first place. He questioned why the landlord was not holding the original builder of the building and the supplier of the lift to account. On 30 March 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that if he had any further queries about the quality of works or level of service, he should direct them to its property manager.
8. The resident replied, asking for an explanation as to why residents were being repeatedly charged for the same problems with the building, sometimes only a few days after the last visit. He expressed concern that there were so many problems with a newly built property and commented that his service charge had increased by £60 per month which he considered excessive. He asked the landlord to “provide all necessary information” as to how the charges were calculated.
9. The resident then lodged a formal complaint with the landlord by email on 2 April 2020. He had received a letter about a service charge increase and wished to complain about it. He reiterated his concerns about suspected poor workmanship resulting in repeat visits and excess charges. He related this to issues with the lift, entry doors, bin doors and locks and the lighting. He confirmed his view that faulty design was responsible for some of the problems, particularly with the entry doors. He stated that he had already lodged a complaint on 20 February 2020 but had received no response.
10. In the landlord’s response of 7 April 2020, it referred to a breakdown of costs that it had sent to the resident and sent a spreadsheet to assist him. It also provided further information about the lift, the lighting and the doors. It commented that it was legally required to maintain the lift and if it failed to do so it would be closed down on an independent inspection. The resident emailed the landlord by return restating his view that it was bad design causing the problems with the lift and the doors. With regard to the lighting, he questioned why the landlord had installed LED lighting as it remained on constantly and this was an expense the residents should not have to pay for.
11. On 22 April 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints section again, reporting that he was being referred from one department to another without anyone giving him any explanations for the questions he was asking. This Service then wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2020, asking it to respond to the resident’s concerns and accept the communication as his complaint if one had not already been formally made.
12. Also on 24 April 2020 the resident emailed the landlord directly, raising the possibility that the number of visits to the block was being deliberately inflated so that charges could be raised for payment by the residents in the service charge. He said call outs were repetitive and the landlord’s contractor was failing to find long term solutions to faults.
13. The landlord responded to the resident on 27 April 2020, confirming that it had taken the communication as the initial complaint and would be investigating it. It confirmed that its understanding of the complaint was that there had been multiple repairs needed to various aspects of the communal areas in the block resulting in unreasonable service charges. It stated that it would provide a response within ten working days, so by 7 May 2020.
14. The landlord started to investigate the position and noted internally that there had been 32 repair orders for communal entrance/doors, 27 repair orders for communal lighting and 21 repair orders for lift defects. It acknowledged that this seemed excessive for a building which was only six years old.
15. On 7 May 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of its investigation, confirming that it had looked at call outs since November 2018. It commented that any challenge to the reasonableness of the costs billed by way of service charge should be made to the First Tier Tribunal. It further stated that the last billing period for service charge ended on 16 September 2019 and the time frame had elapsed for the resident to inspect any documentation relating to those most recently billed charges. It noted that its property manager had supplied the resident with maintenance records relating to the lift and communal door repairs in April 2020.
16. The landlord went on to analyse the call outs to the lift concluding that the most common reason for attendance was “passenger misuse”. It explained that “door alignment issues” occurred where the lift doors were held or forced open or vandalised. The lift was returned into service on each occasion which, the landlord asserted, evidenced that the repair had been carried out satisfactorily. It gave the resident the option to have the issues investigated independently but highlighted that this would incur charges for the residents of the block as a whole of between £850 to £1,250.
17. With respect to communal lighting the landlord reported that there had been six maintenance orders raised but they all related to different issues at various locations rather than being a repeat of the same fault. It set out that there had been seven orders for repairs to the bin store doors relating to the lock, hinges and frame and, whilst these included wear and tear, they also included damage due to vandalism. With regard to the main entrance door, it explained that there had been thirteen orders raised since November 2018 but did not offer any further detail. It confirmed that it was bound to attend to reports of breakdowns and faults. It concluded that the repair works carried out overall had not been excessive or repetitive but if the resident wanted the costs reviewed, he could pursue this via the First Tier Tribunal. Finally, the landlord confirmed that this was its final response to the complaint.
18. The resident referred the matter to this Service, explaining that this was a relatively new building and the frequency with which repairs had been needed to the doors, lift, bin locks, lighting and so on suggested one of two things (or possibly both). Either, the landlord’s contractors were doing a poor job of repairs, or the building was subject to design faults and/or poor quality construction. He considers, given the age of the property, that there should be some guarantees from the original construction which the landlord ought to be able to enforce. He questions why the landlord has not monitored its contractor’s performance. He points out that the situation has an adverse financial impact, not just for himself but for other residents in the block, and reports support for his attempts to bring some scrutiny from amongst them. He believes the landlord should reimburse service charges to all residents as they are not receiving a good enough service for their money.

Assessment and findings

19. The fundamental subject of the resident’s complaint concerns the amount of service charge being levied by the landlord and whether these charges have been reasonably incurred. As such the majority of the complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and would be more appropriately considered and determined by the First Tier Tribunal, Property Chamber (see paragraphs 2 to 5 above). It is noted that the jurisdictional limitations on this Service were brought to the resident’s attention previously and that he has proceeded with the investigation on the basis of the matters that the Ombudsman can consider.
20. Whilst this Service can assess whether repairs/maintenance were carried out in a reasonable way and in accordance with the landlord’s service level agreements, and so on, it is unable to provide an expert opinion as to whether the repairs/maintenance that have been conducted reached an acceptable level in terms of quality. In any event, the resident has not suggested that the reporting of repairs and/or maintenance as they have arisen have not been responded to appropriately by the landlord, or that there has been delay or a lack of communication in that regard.
21. It is the resident’s argument that it is the repetitive nature of the call outs that evidences poor quality workmanship/design. The landlord counters this by asserting that, where the same issues have arisen in the building, this is because the same “misuse” of the building has been repeated. The landlord has provided schedules of the call outs which are mostly now historic and do not appear to have been complained about at the time they actually arose. As a result, this Service is limited in the extent to which it can investigate the individual reports, and the reasonableness of the landlord’s responses, given that so much time has elapsed since they occurred.
22. However, the landlord’s internal note, referred to at paragraph 14 above, is striking. It sets out that its staff member’s initial reaction to the resident’s complaint was to note what they considered, in their experience, to be a disproportionate number of repair/maintenance call outs given the age of the building. Later, however, having considered the nature of the call outs over the year or so before the complaint, the landlord concluded that they were justified after all.
23. Given the limited scope of this investigation, the historic nature of many of the repairs reports, the landlord’s prompt responses to more recent repairs issues, and its subsequent explanation of the various repairs in response to the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman finds that there is insufficient evidence of a failure in service to warrant a finding against the landlord. However, the following observations are made for consideration by both parties in the interests of moving the matter forward and addressing the substantive issues raised by the resident.
24. A significant reason for call outs to the lift relates to the suggestion of doors being forced or wedged open. The resident disputes this but it is anticipated that he does not witness the lift’s use constantly and cannot be certain that this is not the case. A recommendation is made that the landlord review what it has done/can do to bring this issue to all residents’ attention to prevent it recurring.
25. With regard to the lighting, the evidence shows that a different form of LED lighting was introduced which the landlord asserts costs less to run despite it being in use more. A recommendation is made that the landlord considers if it can produce a comparison of lighting costs before and after the change to demonstrate this saving to the resident.
26. A source of call outs to the bin store has included damage and vandalism. Therefore, a recommendation is made that the landlord considers if there is anything cost-effective that can be done to improve the security in this area.
27. With regard to the main entrance door, the call outs for the period analysed by the landlord average one per month, and it is understandable that the resident has drawn the conclusions he has about this issue. Indeed, in the landlord’s complaint response it did not give any explanation on this point in the way it did with the other issues. As a result, a recommendation is made that the landlord provide that explanation to the resident and review the cost of repairs to the door so far, in comparison with the cost of its renewal to a different design, in order to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of repair over replacement. It might assist to confirm to the resident what element of the reserve fund currently represents door replacement, and when, according to its calculations, a replacement would be due, at what cost.
28. The resident has questioned whether the building has the benefit of any guarantees for individual components, given its age. The landlord might reasonably be expected to have records of what, if any, are available and to look at ‘enforcing’ them if necessary. It is, therefore, recommended that the landlord confirm to the resident that it is taking such guarantees, if any, into consideration relevant to the building.

Determination (decision)

29. In accordance with paragraphs 39(g) and (i) of the Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal areas of the building the resident’s property is situated in.

Reasons

31. The majority of this complaint relates to the reasonableness of the service charge and is outside of this Service’s jurisdiction. There is no evidence that individual repairs were not handled appropriately by the landlord as they arose. This Service cannot provide an expert opinion as to the standard of the landlord’s contractor’s workmanship. Neither can it express an expert opinion about the effectiveness of the original construction of the building or the design of its individual components.

Recommendations

32. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should:
    1. in respect of the lifts, review what it has done/can do to bring this issue to all residents’ attention to try to prevent it recurring;
    2. in respect of the lighting, consider if it can produce a comparison of lighting costs before and after the change in lighting that it introduced to demonstrate to the resident the cost saving it identified;
    3. in respect of the bins, consider if there is anything cost-effective that can be done about the security in this area;
    4. in respect of the main entrance door, provide an explanation to the resident for the number of call outs and review the cost of repairs to the door so far in comparison with the cost of its renewal to a different design – to demonstrate to the resident the cost effectiveness of repair over replacement;
    5. in respect of the guarantees, confirm to the resident that it is taking any guarantees it has the benefit of relating to the building into consideration when organising/handling maintenance and repair.