NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202213614)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213614

NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited

17 September 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The level of the communal and personal heating service charges.
   2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the personal heating service charge.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of maggots and flies in the communal areas.
   4. The landlords handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the gable end of the block.
   5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about moving to another property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the property, a 1 bed second floor flat which is in a block with internal communal areas. The block has a communal boiler, and all residents pay a property heating service charge, for heating to their individual flat. The amount is the same for each resident, regardless of how much heating they may use.
4. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident, but it was aware she had some health issues.
5. In the summer of 2021, the resident reported an issue with rubbish bags in the communal areas causing maggots and flies. The landlord visited the block, checked the area, and put spray and powder down to kill the maggots and flies.  The resident continued to report the issue over the next summer and raised a complaint on 4 July 2022, about this and other issues. She reported some vinyl and carpet needed securing to stop the maggots getting underneath and this was secured by the landlord on 1 August 2022.
6. At the same time as reporting the maggots and flies on 20 August 2021, the resident also sent an email to the landlord reporting cracks on the gable end of the block. The email included photos, a list of the issues and the water ingress concerns she had for the block if the repairs were not dealt with. The resident had to chase a response to her email and was advised a surveyor would be attending. The resident chased 3 more times for an update. The update advised that a survey had been carried out, recommendations had been made and there was no risk to the stability of the flats. The resident was not happy with how the matter had been handled and included it in her complaint to the landlord.
7. The landlord has provided evidence in the form of email correspondence which confirmed a third-party contractor completed two fire risk assessments for the property which resulted in no indication of residents storing waste items in the communal circulation areas. It is noted the Ombudsman has not had sight of the assessments which were conducted on 11 January 2023 nor 11 December 2023 and the email correspondence provided dated 25 April 2024 is recent internal correspondence between the landlord’s staff.
8. The resident’s complaint letter of 4 July 2022 detailed her complaints as:
   1. Maggots and flies in the block and that the promised action had not been carried out.
   2. Lack of communication about the exterior cracks on the gable end of the block.
   3. The unfairness of the heating charge in that everyone pays the same amount regardless of how much heating they use.
   4. Due to the issues, requested a move to a more suitable property of the landlord.
9. On 12 August 2022 the landlord responded about the gable end, but the other issues were not mentioned. In October 2022 the Ombudsman asked the landlord to provide a stage 1 complaint response by 11 October 2022. The landlord provided a response and advised that if the maggot issue returned to let it know and it would take action. It said the cracks on the gable end would be monitored. The communal boiler could not be changed to a metered system due to its age, but the landlord said it may explore something in the future. It gave advice to the resident on moving.
10. The resident was not satisfied and escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process. The landlord asked for 3 extensions and the final complaint response was delayed. The resident remained dissatisfied and on 8 February 2023 asked the Ombudsman to investigate her complaint.
11. The gable end was repaired sometime in April 2023. The resident went to the First-tier Tribunal about her rent and service charge levels in 2023 and has confirmed she has made a further application about the 2024-2025 rent and service charge levels. The resident and the landlord have had continued communication about the resident’s ongoing concerns around the maggots and flies, the heating charge, and her request to move.
12. The landlord provided email correspondence dated 30 June 2023 which illustrates a discussion took place with the resident during a visit regarding a potential move.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

13. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
14. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
15. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that “concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings”.
16. After carefully considering the evidence, the resident’s complaint concerning the level of the communal and personal heating service charges sits outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
17. The complaint relates to the level of service charges, that the resident does not agree with. Complaints concerning the level of charges are not considered by the Ombudsman and the resident has informed us she has made applications to the First-tier tribunal. The resident may seek independent advice on the options available to escalate her concerns.
18. Other issues raised are within the Ombudsman jurisdiction and have been investigated.

Scope of investigation

19. The resident has referenced how the situation and the landlord’s lack of communication and empathy has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the issues reported and the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
20. In more recent communication with the landlord and the Ombudsman the resident has raised issues with the communal electricity service charge. In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman can only consider issues that have completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and have been brought to the Ombudsman.
21. The landlord and the resident have continued to communicate since the complaint was accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman (17 March 2023), and some actions have been taken. This investigation is focused on the actions and / or omissions prior to the resident making a complaint and up to 17 March 2023. Reference is made to subsequent events only in so far as they relate to the original complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about the personal heating service charge

22. As per the tenancy agreement, the resident pays a personal heating service charge. The heating for each flat runs off a communal boiler and all residents pay the same amount for their heating, regardless of how much they use.
23. The resident complained to the landlord that the heating system was unfair. She wanted to know why the landlord was allowing residents to have their heating on so much. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that due to the age and design of the heating system it could not be changed to a metered system. It said it may be able to look at something in the future. The response was reasonable, as it explained the barriers the landlord had to making changes to the system and what the landlord could do about the issue.
24. However, the landlord should have done more to manage the resident’s expectations. It was not until June 2023 that the landlord explained it could not directly tell other residents how much heating to use. It should have explained this earlier. The landlord could have offered the resident some financial support or advice. It was not reasonable that it did not.
25. The resident has told the Ombudsman that at the end of 2022 the landlord looked into the viability of electric heaters and hot water. On 3 May 2023 the landlord sent all residents a letter to advise that it was reviewing the way it measures and charges for individual heating and hot water usage. The landlord acted reasonably by looking into alternative solutions and seeking independent advice about the system. It was customer focused and solution driven. However, in the evidence submitted to the Ombudsman for this investigation, it was not clear if the residents have been notified of the outcomes of these two possibilities.
26. In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about the personal heating service charge. The landlord looked into other options, but it did not fully manage the resident’s expectations. It responded unsympathetically at times to her clear distress in her communication about the cost and the unfairness of the heating system. It is not clear if or how the landlord has reviewed the heating system and what the outcomes are. Orders have been made below to reflect this finding.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of maggots and flies in the communal areas

27. In section 2, paragraph 4 of the resident’s tenancy agreement it states that the landlord will keep common entrance and hallways in reasonable repair and fit for use by the residents. On 10 August 2021, the landlord’s call log stated that the resident reported that there were maggots and flies in the communal area, and she was concerned some may be getting under the vinyl and carpet. The landlord attended on 18 August 2021, inspected the area, and did not raise any repairs for the vinyl or carpet. The call log did not specifically say that repairs were required, and the landlord acted reasonably in checking the area.
28. In the resident’s 4 July 2022 complaint to the landlord, she said that the loose tiles and carpet needed glueing down to prevent maggots getting underneath. At this point the landlord was on notice of a repair and had an obligation to inspect and carry out any repairs required in a reasonable time. It completed the repair on 1 August 2022. The landlord has 6 priority codes with timescales in its repairs, maintenance, and improvement policy, and it is not evident which priority code this work was given. However, the Ombudsman finds the completion date of 1 August 2022 was a reasonable timeframe.
29. When it received each report of maggots and flies, the landlord assessed each one and allocated them to its community environmental team. Rubbish left outside flats is not listed in the antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy ‘what is ASB?’ table, which lists what it will consider as ASB and other matters that it will not. But it was reasonable that the landlord initially deemed it not to be ASB and allocated it accordingly. The resident was not kept informed and was unaware what the landlord had done. This was not reasonable, and the landlord should have shared its progress. This would have let the resident know it was trying to resolve the situation.
30. As part of this investigation the landlord provided evidence from 2023 that showed it took a supportive approach in respect of the neighbour causing the maggots and flies. The landlord should have made more efforts to communicate with the neighbour in 2021 and 2022. In not doing so the landlord prolonged the issue and did not act effectively to resolve an unpleasant situation. The landlord should have taken this more direct supportive approach earlier. It was not reasonable that it delayed action and put the onus on residents to keep reporting. It knew who was causing the issue, knew it was happening every summer and could have dealt with it proactively.
31. In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the reports of maggots and flies in the communal area. The situation happened on a yearly basis and the root cause of the issue was not dealt with. Service failures accumulated over a period of time with an overall failure to recognise the risk to all residents of a pest infestation. The landlord was reactive to the situation and did not show it was committed to putting things right and resolving the issue permanently. The landlord and resident relationship was undermined due to the continued lack of action and poor communication. In recognition of these failings, the Ombudsman has made orders, detailed below.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the gable end of the block

32. The landlord’s repairs, maintenance, and improvement policy states that it will keep customers informed before, during and after works have been done. It does not stipulate whether this relates only to property repairs or whether it includes communal repairs. On 20 August 2021 the resident alerted the landlord to repairs required on the gable end of the block of flats. As the resident reported the communal repairs, she assumed she would be kept updated. In February 2022, after chasing the landlord 3 times for an update, she told the landlord it needed to get better at providing updates and proper timescales. It was not until 12 August 2022 that the resident received a comprehensive update to her reports. This was not an appropriate response from the landlord.
33. The landlord should have kept the resident informed and communicated its progress with her. If it believed it did not need to keep her informed, as they were communal repairs which did not directly affect her ability to enjoy or occupy her home, it should have communicated that and managed her expectations. The landlord did not listen to the resident and improve its communication. It was not customer focused and the time and trouble the resident was going to, was increased.
34. The works were completed at some point in April 2023, some 431 to 448 working days after the resident reported them. Taking into account the surveys required, the complexity of the work and the financial requirement, the Ombudsman finds this was an unacceptable delay to the completion of the repairs. While it did not directly impact the resident in this case, it was acknowledged by the landlord that the repairs were required, and it took too long to administer the processes to get the repairs completed in a reasonable timeframe. This was not appropriate and left the residents in the block with uncompleted repairs for too long.
35. In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the gable end of the block. Although the resident was not adversely impacted by the cracks, the delay in the completion of the works was not reasonable. The resident was not kept updated and this exacerbated the situation, increasing the time and trouble the resident was having to take, to try and get updates on what was happening. The landlord did not improve its communication and the Ombudsman has made an order of compensation and a recommendation, found in the relevant section below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about moving to another property

36. On 4 July 2022, in the resident’s complaint to her landlord, she requested that she wanted to move to another one of its properties, where she would only pay for the heating that she uses. In its delayed stage 1 complaint response the landlord offered the appropriate advice as to how the resident could move. This was a reasonable response. However, the resident waited 3 and a half months for this advice, which was not appropriate. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience waiting for the landlord’s response.
37. Paragraph 3.25 of the landlord’s lettings policy (December 2022) states that it holds its own waiting list for applicants who have expressed an interest in hard to let properties or specialist schemes. The Ombudsman has not received evidence to show whether this term was in the previous lettings policy, active at the time of the resident’s initial request. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was received on 20 January 2023, when the above policy was active, and it did not contain this information. It was therefore unreasonable of the landlord to not include this option in its response. It is also unreasonable for the landlord to put the onus on residents to express their interest in this option, unless the landlord makes the option known to all residents.
38. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that she is still waiting for the landlord to discuss moving with her. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response said that the landlord would contact her. This delay in action is not appropriate, or customer focused. The resident has been requesting help with moving since July 2021 and her expectations around what the landlord can and cannot do have not been managed. She has not been adequately supported in this matter causing her distress and inconvenience.
39. In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about moving to another property. It offered the appropriate advice, except for one option it failed to mention. The landlord did not manage the resident’s expectations, treat her sympathetically, or follow through with the offer of contacting the resident to discuss the matter. It is also noted the resident requested a move to another property in July 2022, waited a further 3 and a half months to discuss moving, and there was an omission in the information it should have provided to the resident. The 2023 discussion regarding the potential move for the resident followed the failures mentioned above.

The landlord’s complaint handling

40. Landlords must have an effective complaint process to provide a good service to their residents. An effective complaint process means landlords can fix problems quickly, learn from their mistakes and build good relationships with tenants. In this case the landlord did not recognise the resident’s complaint as one which prevented it from dealing with the issues quickly and building a relationship with the tenant based on trust and resolutions.
41. The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 July 2022. The letter was entitled “complaint relating to unresolved and reoccurring issues in my block”. The landlord applies the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint in its customer complaints policy: “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting a resident or group of residents”. The letter was clearly a complaint. Paragraph 1.7 of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint or enter it into its complaint process. This was not appropriate, and it denied the resident the opportunity to resolve the issues at the earliest opportunity. This was not customer focused and extended the time the resident was left with unresolved concerns.
42. After the Ombudsman intervened, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 10 October 2022, 66 working days after the complaint was received. The stage 1 response did not acknowledge or apologise for the failure to treat the resident’s letter as a complaint and the subsequent delay. Paragraph 6.1 of the code is about putting things right and advises that landlords must acknowledge when something has gone wrong and set out how it will put things right. This can include an apology. It would have been reasonable to expect the response to explain that it missed the opportunity to raise a complaint and apologise for that and the delay. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not include this in the response, and it was a missed opportunity to repair the landlord / resident relationship.
43. The landlord did not adequately detail its actions in the stage 1 complaint response. As part of this investigation the landlord has provided the Ombudsman with evidence of the actions it took when the resident reported the maggots and flies, which included securing the flooring on 1 August 2022 and raising a task for the local staff to speak to the alleged perpetrator directly. This detail should have been included in the response, in line with paragraph 6.9 of the code, that decisions, reasons and remedies should be clearly explained. This may have helped to assure the resident that the landlord was committed to resolving the reoccurring issue of the maggots and flies. It was not an appropriate response, and the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
44. The stage 2 complaint investigation was carried out by a panel of landlord managers. It included the manager who had carried out the stage 1 complaint investigation and response. This was not appropriate. Paragraph 5.12 of the code is clear in that the person considering the complaint a stage 2, must not be the same person that considered the complaint at stage 1. It would have been fairer to the resident that new people were investigating and considering her complaints.
45. The stage 2 complaint response was received 67 working days after the resident escalated the complaint, outside of both the Code’s timescales (including extension timescales) and the landlord’s customer complaint policy’s timescales. This was not appropriate. The landlord did ask for an extension 3 times, but the new timescales were not date specific. Given the length of the delay, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to provide the resident with a date, to ensure there was no confusion and the resident could easily keep track of the response.
46. The resident had to chase for updates when the landlord missed its new deadlines. Paragraph 4.10 of the code states that landlords should keep residents updated about their complaint even when there is no new substantive information to give. The landlord should have had a better oversight of the complaint and updated the resident in a timely manner when it knew it was going to miss its deadlines. In not doing so the landlord acted inappropriately, the resident did not feel listened to and has advised the Ombudsman she felt the landlord’s communication with residents was generally poor.
47. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not apologise for the delay to the response nor offer any compensation for it. It did not provide an explanation. This was not reasonable. Paragraph 6.1 of the Code gives examples of how a landlord can put things right and it includes apologising, providing an explanation and providing a financial remedy. It would have been reasonable of the landlord to put these options in its response, in regard to its complaint handling. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an apology and a compensation payment of £200 for the service failures in relation to the complaint handling would have been reasonable.
48. In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not use the complaint handling process to put things right and there were multiple failings. In recognition of the inconvenience to the resident because of the landlord’s complaint handling, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident compensation and apologise to her.

Determination

49. In accordance with paragraph’s 42(d) and 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the level of the communal and personal heating service charges is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
50. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about the personal heating service charge.
51. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of maggots and flies in the communal areas.
52. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of cracks in the gable end of the block.
53. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiry about moving to another property.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

55. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
56. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £800, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for service failures in relation to the personal heating charge, resulting in time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience to the resident.
    2. £200 for service failures in relation to the maggots and flies, resulting in time and trouble, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
    3. £200 for service failures in relation to the cracks in the gable end, resulting in time and trouble for the resident.
    4. £100 for service failures in relation to the rehousing request, causing distress and inconvenience to the resident.
    5. £200 for the service failures in relation to complaint handling, resulting in time and trouble for the resident.
57. It should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
58. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to meet with the resident face to face, to discuss the following matters, and to provide a written summary to her of the meeting:
    1. How the landlord intends to proactively manage the maggot and flies’ issue.
    2. Rehousing options in full and, where appropriate, how the landlord can assist.
59. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide the resident with a written statement explaining the outcome of the electrical heating consideration and the outcome of the review into the heating system. It must include what each found, what the landlord intends to do, and timescales for any actions. It must provide reasoning for any decisions.

Recommendations

60. The landlord to review its repairs, maintenance, and improvements policy, to consider how it relates to communal repairs, and make any necessary improvements to:
    1. Ensure residents are aware how they will be communicated with if they report communal repairs.
    2. Ensure communal repair timescales are clear if they are different to property repairs.