The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

One Housing Group (202008176)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008176

One Housing Group

15 March 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 concerns:
    1. How the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns relating to pest control.
    2. The condition of communal areas and windows.
    3. The level of the service charge.
    4. The associated complaint into these matters

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s 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 will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Should the resident wish to pursue the matter of the increase of the service charge amount, he has the option of making an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) (FTT).  The FTT has the power to make decisions that are binding on the parties.
  3. The FTT can make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability, a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable. The FTT can also determine cases where the complainant has alleged that there has been a failure of statutory requirements and where the determination of the complaint would be reliant on determination of a contested legal issue.
  4. Therefore, the element of the resident’s complaint relating to the level of the service charge will not be considered in this report.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, which is a local authority. The property is a flat in a communal building.
  2. On 14 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord regarding the trimming of a tree outside the building. The resident noted that the branches of the tree were growing into some balconies on the property and although gardeners had attended the building that day, the tree was not cut back. The resident also provided the landlord with a photograph of the tree.
  3. On 29 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and informed it of two issues with pest control. He first described hearing rats in the wall space of one of the bedrooms in the property. He then described the ongoing issue of pigeon faeces on the exterior windows and ledges. He requested that the windows were cleaned and suggested installing bird spikes to resolve the problem. The resident also requested to raise a formal complaint into the matter.
  4. The landlord replied to the resident on 29 April 2020 and stated that his email had been forwarded to its complaint team and its pest control team.
  5. On 23 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord and requested an escalation of his complaint. The resident described his dissatisfaction that the ongoing issue of pigeon faeces had not been addressed and that the service charge had increased despite the poor level of service he had experienced relating to maintenance and cleaning of the building. With his email, the resident provided several photographs of his windows, the building, and car park.
  6. The landlord sent a formal complaint response to the resident on 13 July 2020. It stated that it had partially upheld the complaint on the grounds that there were two missed appointments by its cleaning contractors, and also recognised that there were areas of improvement in its management of third-party contractors. It then informed the resident that:
    1. It had asked its specialist tree contractor to cut back the tree highlighted by the resident and can confirm the work had been completed.
    2. It had arranged for a quote for a one-off external window cleaning and was proposing to add a quarterly window cleaning programme in the new financial year.
    3. Its pest control team had implemented a treatment programme in response to the resident’s reports of rodents in the building and it had commissioned a survey from a specialist contractor to address the issue of pigeons.
    4. It had spoken with its cleaning contractor regarding the failed visits. It confirmed that residents will not be charged for the missing visits and going forward the cleaning will be monitored by its property manager, who will be receiving post-cleaning photographs after the contractor’s weekly visits.
  7. The landlord concluded its response by informing the resident that he had exhausted its internal complaints process and advised him on the steps to take to bring his case to this Service should he remain dissatisfied.
  8. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 August 2020 and asked for an update on his complaint and noted it had been over 20 days since he sent an escalation request.
  9. The landlord replied on 4 August 2020. It informed the resident that it had sent its response on 13 July 2020. It provided the resident with a copy of the response and also informed him that its complaint policy had changed in February 2020 and now only had one formal stage. The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 August 2020. He confirmed that the tree had been cut back and that there had been no recent signs of rodent activity. He then expressed his frustration that the windows had yet to be cleaned, there seemed to be no progress on the pigeon issue, and that rubbish continued to be left in the building’s car park.
  10. The landlord sent a follow-up to its complaint response to the response on 27 August 2020. It provided documents which showed that the windows, car park and other communal areas had now all been cleaned.

Assessment and findings

Pest control

  1. The landlord was informed by the resident of rodent activity in the wall space of his property and an ongoing issue of pigeon faeces on the windows and ledges. In response, the landlord’s pest control team implemented a treatment programme to resolve the issues of rodents and commissioned a survey by a specialist contractor to address the problem of pigeons.
  2. In responding to the complaint response, the resident stated that there had been no recent signs of rodent activity. On 13 November 2020, the landlord received a quote to install anti-perch spikes onto the building.
  3. This was an appropriate response by the landlord. On receiving reports of issues with pests, it recognised it was its responsibility to resolve issues as it related to the fabric of the building and communal areas. Its pest control team implemented a treatment programme and it took on the suggestion by the resident of installing bird spikes and commissioned a survey and quote from a specialist contractor.

Cleaning

  1. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of his windows and the communal areas around the building. He informed the landlord of his unhappiness with the quality of work from its cleaning contractors and the condition of the windows.
  2. In its complaint response, the landlord recognised that its cleaning contractor had missed two visits and acknowledged that it could improve how it managed its third-party contractors. It apologised to the resident and informed him that the missed cleaning visits would not be charged.
  3. As a resolution to these issues, the landlord changed the oversight of its cleaning contractors, who would supply its property manager with photographs following their weekly cleaning visits. It also arranged to have a one-off cleaning of the windows and would implement a quarterly window cleaning programme in the next financial year.
  4. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered (an acknowledgment of its error, an apology, refunding the missed cleaning visits, changing its management procedures for cleaning and implementing a new window cleaning programme) put things right and resolved these elements of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  5. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake, apologising to the resident and arranging for the windows to be cleaned. It put things right by changing its policy to improve its management of the cleaning contractors and implementing a quarterly window cleaning programme. The action taken by the landlord in response to the complaint should also help to ensure that similar failings do not occur in the future.

Complaint handling

  1. At the time that the complaint was raised by the resident, the landlord operated a one-stage complaint policy. Paragraphs 5.1 to 5.3 of the policy describes the complaint resolution process and states as follows:

5.1. When you first let us know you are unhappy about a service your concern will be forwarded to our Resolutions Team to review. A member of our Resolutions Team (a Resolutions Officer) will contact you to discuss your concerns and work with you to agree a satisfactory outcome; we aim to do this within 3 working days.

5.2. If, following this, you are still unhappy and/or we are unable to resolve your concerns, the Resolution Officer will forward these to our Corporate Complaints & Insight Team, who will now treat the concern as a formal complaint.

5.3. The Corporate Complaints team will appoint a lead officer to work with you to investigate and endeavour to resolve your complaint. The complaint will be acknowledged within 2 working days. The lead officer will provide you with a written response within 15 working days outlining the outcome of their investigation and any action(s) agreed with you to resolve your complaint, or if actions cannot be agreed, our final decision on the matter. If we need more time to investigate your complaint (for example, if it is particularly complex) we will contact you to explain and agree a new response time. We will always provide you with a response within 30 calendar days, unless we have previously agreed a later deadline.

  1. This process was not followed in this complaint. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 29 April 2020, but no evidence has been provided which shows any further correspondence between the resident and the landlord until the complaint response was sent over two months later.
  2. The landlord did not recognise or apologise for this delay in its complaint response. It did note that in his email sent on 23 June 2020, the resident had requested not to discuss his complaint via the telephone in advance of the response being sent. However, in his email the resident had requested that complaint correspondence should be sent to him via letter or email.
  3. The delay in providing a complaint response to the resident was a service failure by the landlord. To fully resolve the matter, a compensation payment is warranted to recognise the inconvenience this caused the resident and the delay in providing a resolution to the elements of the complaint.
  4. It should be noted that in January 2021 the landlord implemented a new two-stage complaints policy which is in compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
    1. How it responded to the resident’s concerns relating to pest control.
    2. The condition of communal areas and windows.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay to the resident £100 compensation for its service failure in not following its complaint policy in operation at the time and the inconvenience and delay that this caused.
  2. This payment should be made within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should update this Service when payment has been made.