Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202011801)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011801

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

16 November 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:

a)     Maintenance, including external decoration and cleaning.

b)     Its repairs service.

c)     Service charges.

d)     Communication.

2. The landlord’s complaints handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property (‘the property’), a two-bedroom flat contained within a building (‘the building’), which the landlord owns and manages as the freeholder. The lease confirms the landlord’s responsibility to repair and maintain the structure and exterior of the property and communal areas, for which the resident has a responsibility to pay a service charge for costs the landlord reasonably incurs in completing these duties. The lease confirms that the landlord’s repair/maintenance responsibilities extend to the windows and window frames of the property and building.
4. The landlord document ‘Repairs: a guide for leaseholders’ (‘the repairs policy’) confirms the landlord target times for repairs: emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 28 days and major routine repairs within three months or as part of a planned programme of works. The repairs policy confirms that it will carry out cyclical maintenance works, including the painting of external windows and doors.
5. The landlord operates a two stage complaints process, with a 10 working day response timescale at stage one and a 20 working day timescale at stage two.
6. There is evidence of the resident having submitted multiple complaints in the months before the complaint investigation, dating from July 2019 to January 2020. These complaints included the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s response to his reports about an electrical cupboard, a damaged wall, the dumping of waste and service charges. It is not known to what extent, if at all, the landlord progressed these complaints through its complaints process, though it is noted that its failure to respond to complaints is one of the issues he has raised for consideration here.
7. The complaint submitted to the landlord on 30 June 2020 (below) was signed by ‘the residents’; the resident has also confirmed his view that the complaint is a joint complaint that he has raised and pursued on behalf of he and other residents of the building. The complaint does not, however, meet the criteria of an Ombudsman joint complaint as this Service requires signed confirmation from each joint complainant that they are satisfied for the complaint to be progressed on their behalf. It is also evident that the landlord has responded solely to the resident throughout the complaints process, indicating that it has not treated the complaint as a joint complaint.

Summary of events

8. On 30 June 2020, a complaint was submitted to the landlord relating to concerns over the ‘deteriorating quality of’ the landlord’s management of the block’. The complaint was signed by ‘the residents’ of the block, though no individual residents were named. In an attached appendix, the specific concerns were outlined under separate headings;

a)     Long term maintenance – No external decoration had taken place since 2006, despite two occasions where the landlord had consulted on its plans to carry out such works. The failure to complete this work had resulted in significant repair issues with the windows, which now required replacement. In addition, there had been no bin store for eight months.

b)     Reactive maintenance – Response times to repair issues, with some repairs not given appropriate urgency, an example being the front door to the building, which had been left for weeks. Also, the quality of repairs was generally poor, with contractors employed who were ‘clearly not tradesman’.

c)     Cleaning – The standard of cleaning had declined over the previous year and no cleaning had been done for 3 months during lockdown. Standards had improved since June 2020, however.

d)     Service charges – Some charges were ‘excessive and unjustifiable’, for example costs for replacing bollards. The landlord had been asked to provide an explanation of these costs but had failed to do so, in contravention of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, according to the resident.

e)     Communications – General lack of communication. For example, the landlord failing to give residents advance warning of roof works the previous year. In addition, complaints were ‘ignored or never resolved’, multiple phone calls were required to get anything done and the resident’s association ‘gets no engagement’ from the landlord when it attempted to raise issues.

9. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 10 July 2020, though it also detailed this as its ‘final response’. The landlord responded under the same headings as had been listed in the original complaint:

a)     External decoration – The landlord said that it had instructed its surveying consultant to prepare a report and make recommendations on works required. Once received, it would consult with residents (within six months), with the works to be included in the 2021/22 programme of works. Regarding the bin store, the landlord confirmed that its insurers had given permission for works to proceed, with these scheduled to commence on 13 July 2020.

b)     Reactive maintenance – The landlord confirmed that works requiring scaffolding would have a three-month resolution timescale under its ‘major routine repairs’ classification. It said that it had first attended to the roof works to the building on 20 June 2019, at which point its contractor had identified the need to erect scaffolding. When it re-attended on 27 August, stored items belonging to residents on the flat roof prevented works from taking place – works eventually completed on 18 October 2019.

c)     Quality of works – The landlord said that its technicians were selected based on their qualifications and requirements for the specific trade; it also used feedback from recalls and customer satisfaction surveys to identify and address quality issues.

d)     Cleaning – The landlord explained that a contractor had lost their key for a period, meaning that they were unable to access to the building. As a result, a refund for April and May was agreed. A replacement key had been issued and a full cleaning service was now back in place; its site manager had inspected and was satisfied with the standard of cleaning.

e)     Service charges – The landlord confirmed that the cost of works were agreed by way of a schedule of rates, with consultation taking place where costs to individual leaseholders exceeded £250. The bollard example raised within the complaint had been initially raised by the resident in October 2019, with a full breakdown provided (this breakdown was provided again). The landlord also identified three other occasions where requests for information had been raised (September/October 2019 and February 2020), which the landlord stated had also been responded to.

f)       Communications – The landlord confirmed the named staff member who would engage with and provide support to the resident’s association.

10. The resident responded to the landlord on 16 July 2020. He said that not all of the issues raised had been addressed and thus requested escalation of the complaint. He said that:

a)     Windows aged 25 years ought not to have deteriorated to the extent that they had. He requested recognition from the landlord that its lack of maintenance had led to this situation.

b)     It was unacceptable for the residents to be left with no front door lock for a period of several weeks; he asked that this be reviewed and asked if it was still the case that repairs were being reported but not actioned.

c)     The scaffolding remained on 14 November 2019, when the resident had emailed the landlord. Residents had no prior knowledge of the roof works; had this advance notice been provided, no delays would have taken place.

d)     The resident was ‘disappointed’ with the landlord’s response in regards its general repairs service delivery. Some repairs within the building had been completed to an ‘extremely poor’ standard and it was both ‘dangerous and wasteful’ for the landlord to not at least acknowledge this issue. The resident also said that he would welcome the opportunity to work with the landlord on this issue.

e)     A service charge refund for March 2019 would also be appropriate as no cleaning took place at that point.

f)       The resident’s request for information regarding service charges had not been answered. He had not received the breakdown for the bollards previously and the labour and material charges contained therein were ‘clearly incorrect’. He requested that the landlord review this and reduce the charges; he also said that his complaint on this issue had not been responded to.

g)     The resident asked that the other communication issues that had been raised be responded to, namely the lack of notice prior to works, the complaints system not working, the lack of action from the call centre and only one phone line being available.

11. The landlord sent its stage two response on 26 July 2020, though it was unclear if this represented its final response under its complaints process as it did not signpost the resident to the Ombudsman in the event that he remained dissatisfied, instead requiring him to progress any further concerns to its customer care team.

a)     The landlord acknowledged that it was a ‘reasonable expectation’, with regular cyclical maintenance, that windows would last longer than 25 years. It accepted that it had missed planned cyclical works and acknowledged the possibility that this failure had been a factor in the deterioration in the windows. However, it also stated that other factors, such as an ‘inherent fault or normal deterioration over time’, might have contributed. The landlord proposed progressing down an inspection, tendering and consultation process and, to recognise the landlord’s role in the possible premature deterioration in the windows, it agreed that it would charge residents 75% of repair costs. In addition, should the above process result in a requirement that the windows be replaced, it would also reduce the usual management fee from 10% down to 7%.

b)     Reactive maintenance – The landlord confirmed that some repairs were not being actioned immediately due to covid; it also said that it was not considering reviewing its standard response times at this stage and that it would continue to strive to meet its obligations. The landlord did not respond to the issue raised in relation to the front door lock.

c)     Roof repairs – A site inspection took place on 15 November 2019 confirming that works had resolved the water ingress issues; the scaffolding was then removed on 20 November 2020. The landlord did not address the issue raised about residents not being given advance warning of works.

d)     Quality of repairs – The landlord reiterated its process for monitoring the standard of works and welcomed the opportunity to work with the resident on this issue.

e)     Cleaning – The landlord confirmed that this did take place in March so no further refund would be offered.

f)       Service charges – The landlord confirmed that a member of its leasehold and service charge team had discussed the resident’s concerns with him. It detailed specific invoices that had been sent to residents, including the bollard issue, of which it had reduced costs (from £4079.07 to £3765.02); it also said that it had used actual costs for materials for this work and ‘set labour rates’. The landlord also listed an invoice for manhole works, for which it provided a photograph and invoices for fire risk assessment works, other fire safety related works and servicing of the lighting system. The landlord also said that its procedure for bulk invoicing was in line with the lease and its regulatory requirements.

g)     The landlord acknowledged that the named contact would not resolve all the communication issues raised. It said that it was developing a more comprehensive system and that it would review its current communication channels with a focus on removing any ‘unnecessary obstacles’ that were in place. It also invited the resident to become part of its regional customer panel.

12. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response on 11 September 2020. He said that the ‘sole cause’ of the window deterioration had been the landlord’s mismanagement and as such, its offer to cover 25% of the resulting costs was not reasonable. He also said that he had previously raised concerns about the suitability of the consultant the landlord had instructed on this issue.
13. The resident also said that the issue he had raised regarding response times for repairs related to the front door lock – he asked for reassurance that, post covid, matter such as this would be treated with appropriate urgency. Regarding the quality of repairs, the resident said that he had not been asked to complete a customer satisfaction survey at any point; he also provided the details of a photographic survey he and other residents had undertaken regarding repairs at his and another property within the block. This was dated 11 September 2020 and was subsequently provided to the Ombudsman. It consisted of annotated photographs showing the resident’s views of sub-standard repair works in 2019/20, including loose brickwork, poorly secured railings, a security light not working, trip hazards left in the communal gardens, fire doors poorly repaired, kitchen units, communal lighting, electric cupboard, gaps in fire stopping, external coping and paving.
14. Regarding cleaning, the resident disputed whether any cleaning had taken place beyond 5 March 2020. He said that the contractor had a history of ‘falsifying’ their signing in sheets and requested a copy of its (the contractor’s) records of inspection reports from March 2020 as he understood that these were retained.
15. The resident said that information relating to service charges had been provided following contact from the landlord’s leasehold team on 11 August 2020, but that the information that he requested was not included. He confirmed that, in his view, the issue was closed, with no further monies payable for the 2018/19 year and that he would be happy to progress this issue to the tribunal if the landlord disagreed. He also said that the bollard costs remained unreasonable, that there was no manhole in front of the building, that it had not provided the supporting evidence for its bulk invoices and that he objected to being charged for items that resulted from the landlord’s failure to act responsibly, referring to a 2002 report he had made to the landlord about fire-stopping within the building.
16. The resident also reiterated that his additional communication issues had not been responded to – he requested a concrete commitment as to when these areas would be improved.
17. The landlord responded to the resident on 23 October 2020. In relation to the service charge issue, it said that, following discussion on 11 August, it had supplied ‘the invoices and a description of works for repairs your requested’ and had reduced the cost in relation to one such repair. In its view, it had ‘demonstrated and evidenced justification of costs’.
18. The landlord also said that it had passed the resident’s contact details on internally in relation to his interest in the regional panel. Regarding the other issues (listed as ‘window repairs and associated costs, reactive maintenance, quality of repairs and cleaning’), the landlord said that it had discussed these issues further with relevant heads of service and was satisfied that the issues had been addressed appropriately in previous responses. The resident was signposted to the Ombudsman.
19. The resident approached the Ombudsman on 13 January 2021, providing a summary of the complaint, which again stated that the complaint was submitted by ‘the residents’ of the building. The summary said that residents had been concerned about ‘poor management’ of the property for a long time, leading to the complaint, which included the failure to decorate the property since 2006, the failure to provide supporting evidence to justify service charges, the poor quality and response times for repairs and the lack of communication.
20. The summary also said that the building inspection that recommended replacing all the windows had been carried out by someone not suitably qualified to make such a decision. It requested a new survey from a ‘competent surveyor’ and that no charges be made for replacement/repair to windows identified. The summary also listed the service charge issues that it considered outstanding. It asked that the Ombudsman investigation confirm whether the landlord was entitled to charge VAT on costs, that costs be reduced to reasonable levels and that charges arising from the landlord’s negligence (i.e. its failure to respond to fire safety issues raised with the landlord in 2002) not be charged to residents.
21. In addition, the summary asked that a ‘meaningful improvement in the quality and timeliness of repairs’ take place, with response times adjusted to reflect the urgency of the repair and that the landlord address the communication issues raised as part of the complaint.
22. It is evident that the resident continued to raise complaints in relation to his ongoing concerns with the landlord’s service delivery. This included complaints about, the intercom system (December 2020), use of a cherry picker (March 2021), requests for information in relation to the 2021/22 service charge (also March 2021) and cleaning services (April 2021). As these complaints are outside the scope of this investigation they have not been further referenced here.
23. Following a discussion with this Service on 2 November 2021, the resident provided further information to the Ombudsman. This included a March 2021 request for breakdown of service charges for 2021/22, the landlord’s subsequent confirmation that it had not picked up on the request, a landlord email (July 2021) that apologised for a delay in responding to this issue due to staffing problems and the resident’s further contact to it (November 2021) stating that his request remained outstanding. The resident’s photographic survey, completed in September 2020 (referenced above) in relation to ‘failed repairs’ was also included. This included a loose paving slab and damaged coping to an external bin store – in the resident’s view, this demonstrated the ongoing poor quality of the landlord’s repairs service.
24. In an accompanying email, the resident said that he had exercised his legal right to nominate a potential contractor for the proposed re-decoration works, but that this contractor had not been approached by the landlord. He also provided a comparison of the tenders for these works which confirmed that the landlord had not completed the professional survey that he had requested. He also said that the landlord had not responded to his requests for the surveys that supported its decision-making here and that he was concerned that leaseholders would be asked to cover the costs of glazing as part of these works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

25. This investigation is limited to consideration of the issues that progressed through the specific complaint detailed above and concluding with a final response on 26 July 2020, in accordance with paragraph 39 a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). Evidence of additional complaints, raised before, during and following the completion of the above complaints process have been provided to this investigation and referenced at points throughout this report, though this is primarily for contextual purposes.
26. The Ombudsman’s limited role in investigating those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints process means that only specific repair issues that have been raised and responded to through this complaints procedure will be considered here. The resident has raised general concerns with the quality and timeliness of the landlord’s repairs service delivery, however, this investigation is limited to identifying potential service failure only in relation to those issues that have been explicitly referenced as part of the complaint. The Ombudsman has the power to identify concerns about a landlord’s general service delivery when investigating an individual case, though such scrutiny would more likely result from a systemic investigation. The Ombudsman has the authority to progress down a systemic investigation about a member landlord when, in his opinion, there is  sufficient evidence to do so. This will usually take the form of multiple cases identifying similar issues. Whilst this investigation will not therefore reach conclusions about the landlord’s overall repairs service, it shall consider the landlord’s response to the issues raised as part of the complaint.
27. The Ombudsman does not make findings about the level or reasonableness of service charges (in accordance with paragraph 39 g of the Scheme). The resident has confirmed that he is aware of the role the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) plays in relation to consideration of such issues and has also said that he is prepared to consider this option in the event that the landlord does not adjust its position in relation to charges for previous years. The tribunal also has a role to play in enforcing specific clauses within the lease, or legislation in relation to a lease, including relevant sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Whilst this investigation will consider whether the landlord has responded reasonably to issues raised in this respect, the Ombudsman does not have the authority to make a binding decision as to whether the landlord’s actions have or have not complied with the law.

Maintenance

28. It is not disputed that the resident is liable, under the terms of the lease, to pay a service charge for the costs the landlord reasonably incurs in carrying out its repair and maintenance responsibilities at the property. It is also not disputed that the landlord’s maintenance responsibilities to the building include a regular cleaning service that is carried out by a cleaning contractor and that it also has a cyclical programme that includes external decoration of external windows.
29. The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to complete cyclical external decoration of the building on two occasions (2011 and 2016), despite going through a consultation process with residents on both occasions. The landlord also acknowledged, in responding to the complaint, that it was likely that its failure to carry out these decoration works contributed to potential premature deterioration of the windows. It accepted that the windows would be expected to last longer than the 25 years since the building’s construction and its agreement to arrange an inspection to identify the extent of the works required and to then cover 25% of replacement/repair costs, plus a possible reduction in the management fee was intended to reflect this failure.
30. However, the landlord also said that it was possible that other factors had contributed to the deterioration in the windows, such as an ‘inherent fault or normal deterioration over time’. The resident did not agree with this position, in his view the landlord was fully responsible for the deterioration and ought therefore to cover the entire cost of any repairs/replacement. He also raised concerns about the suitability of the survey of the property that the landlord instructed as he did not believe a professional survey had taken place.
31. The Ombudsman recognises the resident’s frustration with the landlord’s actions as it is likely, given the landlord’s acceptance of responsibility, that he would not be facing a significant service charge invoice but for its service failures. However, this Service is unable to determine the extent to which the landlord is responsible for the deterioration in the windows. It is appropriate, in the Ombudsman’s view, that it has acknowledged that its failure to complete decoration works has contributed to this deterioration, though it also presents as reasonable to say that some degree of deterioration would be expected over a period of 25 years. Reference to a possible ‘inherent fault’ presents however, as somewhat misleading as it would be reasonable to conclude that such an issue would be identified within 25 years and, in any case, it would be the landlord’s responsibility to identify this. Having not done so, the Ombudsman does not consider it reasonable to offer this as a potential reason for the deterioration in the windows.
32. Nonetheless, in the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer to cover a proportion of the costs to be a reasonable one. In the normal course of events, such costs would be 100% payable by the residents and, as such, the offer amounts to a potentially significant financial cost to the landlord for its failure. While the resident clearly disagrees with the extent to which the landlord has taken responsibility here, the Ombudsman is not in a position to conclude that the landlord is wholly responsible for the deterioration in the windows and consideration about the level of charge that might result from this would progress the case within the remit of the tribunal, who would be able to determine whether the actual costs incurred provided the resident with value for money.
33. Regarding the comments made by the resident about the suitability of the consultant surveyor of the windows, the Ombudsman is not able to determine that a surveyor is not suitably qualified. Generally, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for a landlord to rely on specialist advice, as it has done here. That said, the resident has clear concerns and it would be reasonable for the landlord to respond on this issue. His most recent contact with this Service states that he has requested the specific survey information that the landlord used to inform its decision making in this respect. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable for the landlord to provide such information and a recommendation has been included below to reflect this.
34. Regarding cleaning, the landlord acknowledged a two-month period during which its contractor had not provided a cleaning service, for which it offered a reimbursement of charges. The resident was dissatisfied as, in his view, the period during which the cleaning service did not take place extended to a longer period, into March 2020. The landlord did not agree however, stating in its stage two response that cleaning services had taken place in March and that no additional refund would therefore be payable.
35. The resident, following the stage two response, requested further information that he understood to be available from the cleaning contractor to support the landlord’s position. He also raised concerns about the contractor potentially ‘falsifying’ documents. The landlord did not address these concerns in its October 2020 response, instead confirming its view that the resident’s concerns had been addressed. It is not clear if the landlord has access to further information that might clarify what cleaning services took place during March 2020, though it is clear that providing such information to the resident would provide reassurance to the resident that works took place. It is not known if there is any substance to the resident’s reports about the contractor potentially falsifying information; again, offering its position here would provide clarity and reassurance on this issue.

Repairs

36. As detailed above, this investigation is limited to those issues that were raised as part of the complaint submitted to the landlord. With respect to repairs, this entails consideration of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the delay in completing works to the front door of the building, its alleged failure to give advance notice of works (specifically in relation to roofing works), its response timescales and its process for ensuring works completed meet a satisfactory standard.
37. It is also noted that the resident, in response to the landlord’s stage two response, provided the landlord with details of a significant number of repairs that, in his view, had not been completed to a satisfactory standard (photographic survey dated 11 September 2020). The Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficiently robust procedures in place such that new issues that are raised whilst a complaint is live can be picked up and responded to appropriately. This would typically involve raising a new complaint process to run separately to the ongoing complaint. In this case, there is no evidence that this happened, indicating potential complaint handling issues (that have been considered in more detail below). Regarding the specific repair issues raised as part of this survey, this investigation will comment no further here as these issues were not the subject of the original complaint and there is no evidence of their having progressed through the landlord’s complaints process. A recommendation has been included however, that the landlord provide a response on this issue.
38. The landlord did not explicitly respond to the specific issues that were raised as part of the complaint, i.e. the alleged delays in completing works to the front door and its alleged failure to give advance warning about works. The landlord provided its understanding of how the roof works had progressed, but failed to respond to the resident’s reports about providing advance warning of these works. Having been given the opportunity to investigate these issues and provide its position, the landlord’s failure to do so indicates that it has not disputed the resident’s views here. As such, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it met its service delivery obligations in both instances. By consequence, an overall finding of service failure has been identified here, with an order that the landlord pay the resident compensation to reflect the detriment he experienced.
39. The landlord responded to the questions the landlord asked about its repair timescales and how it monitored the effectiveness and quality of works. Its position on both issues presents as reasonable, it explained the process it had for ensuring contractors are suited to the role asked of them and confirmed the feedback loop it had in place for monitoring effectiveness. The landlord also provided its position regarding repair timescales whilst lockdown measures were in place and confirmed that it would not be reviewing its timescales as requested by the resident. The resident did not agree with the landlord’s position; however, the Ombudsman is satisfied that, having provided its position and responded to the questions he raised, no additional service failure can be apportioned to the landlord on this aspect of the complaint.

Service charges

40. As detailed above, this investigation has not considered the resident’s reports about the reasonableness of service charges, an issue more appropriately handled by the tribunal. Regarding the resident’s request that the landlord provide supporting evidence and a detailed breakdown of charges, it is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s requests. The stage one and stage two responses listed specific charges and provided commentary on these charges, including one occasion where it had reduced the charge following the resident’s report. The landlord also provided supporting evidence to the resident in relation to the charges and it is also evident that its leasehold team discussed the issues directly with the resident on at least one occasion.
41. The resident did not agree with the extent to which the landlord responded here. He believed that the information he obtained did not sufficiently justify the charges and, further that this failure contravened section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The Ombudsman is not in a position to decide, on a balance of probability, whether the landlord has responded in a credible manner to the resident’s information request and notes the resident’s willingness to progress this issue further with the tribunal. In the Ombudsman’s view, this would be the appropriate route to follow here as the tribunal would also be able to take a view as to whether the landlord had contravened relevant legislation, including by undertaking a forensic review of the service charge accounts.

Communication

42. The landlord has responded to elements of the complaint raised about communication. It confirmed the staff member who would take on a more proactive role with the resident’s association and said that it was undertaking a review of its entire communication system with a view to improving the customer experience. The landlord also invited the resident to become involved in its regional panel.
43. However, whilst it is commendable that the landlord was able to put in place a designated contact and demonstrated a willing to engage further with the resident himself, it is of concern that it did not directly address the additional issues raised by the resident. Despite the resident’s repeated requests that it respond to his concerns about its phoneline, its complaints management, its notifying about works and the general ‘lack of action’ from the call centre, there is no evidence that it did so. Having raised these issues, the resident had a reasonable expectation that he would receive a response. Whilst general information about its planned review of its communication process clearly, in the landlord’s view, adequately provided its response, the resident was left frustrated as he had received no acknowledgement that the issues had raised were causing he and other residents difficulty and no substantive information about what the landlord was doing to address these concerns.
44. In the circumstances, an overall finding of service failure has been identified here, with an order of compensation and a recommendation that the landlord share with the resident the steps it has now taken, since the completion of the complaints process more than a year ago, to improve its communication service.

Complaint handling

45. The complaint under investigation went through a timely process, with formal responses sent within reasonable timeframes at each stage. However, the process was unclear, with the stage one response detailed as the final response and then the stage two response not being detailed as such, as would have been appropriate. Instead, the stage two response invited a further response for internal consideration, meaning that the complaints process became unnecessarily protracted and resulted in additional issues that the resident wanted to be considered.
46. The landlord also failed to address all of the issues raised, including the repairs issues and communication issues listed above. Having invited a further stage to the complaint, within its stage two response, the landlord then did not respond to the additional issues raised (the new repair issues detailed in the September 2020 photographic survey).
47. It is also noted that one of the communication issues raised by the resident related to the landlord’s complaints handling failures. It is evident that he has submitted a significant number of complaints to the landlord over an extended period. The Ombudsman expects a landlord to have a robust system for managing multiple complaints from the same source. Such a system will ensure that a landlord does not miss the opportunity to identify and address potential areas of concern; it also provides reassurance for the resident and enables a landlord to effectively manage its resources.
48. Whilst the Ombudsman has seen evidence of multiple complaints having been raised by the resident, the evidence gathering process undertaken as part of this investigation did not explicitly require the landlord to provide evidence of its respective responses to these complaints. This was appropriate as this investigation is concerned specifically with the complaint under investigation. However, it is of concern that the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about its complaint handling as part of its formal response and also of concern that other, separate complaints, might not have been responded to appropriately. 

Determination (decision)

49. In accordance with paragraph 55 b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the landlord offered reasonable redress for the service failures identified with its maintenance of the property and building.
50. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about its repairs service.
51. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about service charges.
52. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communication.
53. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

54. The landlord acknowledged that its failure to complete external decoration works had likely impacted upon premature deterioration to the windows, for which its offer to cover a proportion of costs for repairs/replacement was reasonable. It also identified periods where the cleaning contractor had not provided a service and arranged to reimburse costs for these periods.
55. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s reports about its failures in relation to the front door lock and advance warning of works. It did however respond to his request about reviewing response timescales and clarified the process for monitoring the effectiveness of works.
56. The landlord responded to the resident’s request for further information and clarity about service charges and, whilst he clearly did not agree with the extent to which it had responded, the Ombudsman’s role does not extend to reaching such a conclusion as the tribunal is better placed to make such a finding.
57. The landlord provided general comments about its communication process, it also confirmed a named contact that would take an active role with the resident’s association in future and invited the resident to become involved in a regional panel. However, it did not respond to specific issues raised by the resident, as would have been appropriate therefore not providing a comprehensive response addressing all his concerns.
58. The landlord’s complaints process was unclear and became unnecessarily protracted. It also failed to address issues raised by the resident throughout the process, including communication issues and additional repair issues raised in the photographic survey.

Orders and recommendations

Order

59. The landlord to pay the resident £350 in compensation, broken down as follows:

a)     £100 for the service failures identified with its repairs service.

b)     £100 for the service failures identified with its communication.

c)     £150 for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.

60. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 14 December 2021.

Recommendations

61. The landlord to respond to the resident’s viewpoint that the consultant surveyor that identified repair/replacement works to the building was not suitably qualified. This to include providing the resident with any surveys that were completed.
62. The landlord to respond to the specific repair issues raised in the September 2020 photographic survey.
63. The landlord to share with the resident the actions it has taken since the completion of the complaints process to improve its communication and complaint handling processes.