One Housing Group Limited (202204964)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204964

One Housing Group Limited

30 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. Communal repairs.
2. A notice put up by a member of the landlord’s staff.
3. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant whose tenancy began on 25 May 2020.
The property is located on the 2nd floor of the building and has one bedroom. The property is within a new development which the landlord took over the management of in March 2020. The defects period for the building ended in March 2022.
The resident had advised the landlord that she has a learning difficulty which can impact her mental health and her wellbeing.
The landlord has an ASB policy which sets out how it prevents, investigates, supports, and takes action to stop ASB. Relevant points from this policy are:
1. The landlord would not always be the appropriate authority to deal with ASB. In some instances, external agencies such as the Police have the statutory role to deal with the ASB.
2. It is the responsibility of the Police to investigate criminal offences. The landlord will offer support and may take enforcement action if there is evidence of a tenancy breach.
3. The landlord can release CCTV footage to the Police.
4. The landlord can review CCTV footage during ASB investigations where appropriate and proportionate to achieve an aim such as identifying a perpetrator.
5. The landlord will consider legal action where there is sufficient evidence of a tenancy breach.
6. When considering enforcement action, the landlord will make use of warnings and legal notices.
The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy. Within this policy it says:
1. All non-emergency repairs are to be attended within 28 days.
2. Where a repair to a communal installation affects a resident’s day to day usage of their home, such as door entry systems the landlord will aim to keep residents updated of progress.
3. The landlord completes a building inspection each month with communal repairs being identified being raised by the property manager. Residents are also encouraged to report repairs in communal areas as they are noticed.
Residents are invited to take part in monthly joint building inspections. Any actions that come from these inspections are shared to all residents via a correspondence sent by the landlord.
A previous complaint had been made by the resident to the landlord about communal repairs to the hallway and intercom system. This had resulted in a commitment to complete work at a £75 offer of compensation to the resident.

Summary of events

Following damage to walls in the communal hallway caused by workmen, a works order was completed on 1 April 2021. This included scraping off all dry lining plaster around an angle bead and then replastering.
On 27 May 2021 a report was received by the landlord that the communal entrance door’s intercom was not working and was affecting the resident’s flat. This was raised as an emergency repair to be dealt with within 24 hours and the job marked complete on 28 May 2021.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord received a report that the door to the building bin store was damaged. This job is recorded as being completed on 22 June 2021.
On 8 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to raise a complaint about someone dumping rubbish and ‘human fluids’ in the communal area which remained there for a ‘couple of weeks.’ This included blood, urine, and spit in the lift along with food items such as bits of bread, drinks, and fruit. The residents had tried identifying the culprit but were not sure where they lived. The resident said that on behalf of several residents of the building she was asking that the landlord install CCTV in the lift.
The landlord raised a works order on 23 September 2021 to repair cracking plaster following the removal of notice boards. This job was marked completed on 2 November 2021.
On 14 October 2021 the landlord received a report that the communal bin store door was not shutting properly.
On 2 November 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to let it know that she had had a parcel stolen on 27 October 2021. The resident reported to the landlord that other neighbours were also experiencing this issue. The resident added that other ASB such as littering in the communal hallways and cannabis smoking was taking place and that the landlord viewing the CCTV would assist.
The landlord responded on the same day to advise:
1. That residents should change delivery preferences not to leave parcels in a “safe place” and instead nominated a trusted neighbour or had the deliveries signed for.
2. Theft needed to be reported to the Police and it would support any Police investigation.
3. If the perpetrator was found to be a resident and in breach of their tenancy or lease the landlord would act.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord and resident discussed via email the Police’s responsibility progressing an investigation into theft. It confirmed it could view CCTV footage but that it would need an approximate time frame to assist the Police. The landlord stated that its community safety team did not view CCTV footage for criminal investigations but would work with the Police should any perpetrators be identified so tenancy enforcement action could be taken.
On 8 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to all residents of the building regarding littering and ASB. This email invited residents to report to the landlord any information that would assist in its investigation to identify who was responsible.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord requested for an engineer to attend to download images from the CCTV for the landlord to review.
On 2 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to ask if it had received quotes for the install of CCTV in the lift. The resident she had to clean the lift 2 days previously as there was vomit on the floor.
On 8 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to report a mess in the lift, including what was believed to be chicken sauce on the control panel. She said her previous emails about this matter had gone unanswered. She advised that she had raised a repair for this but also asked to raise a formal complaint and enquired what the complaint procedure was.
On 13 December 2021 the landlord’s senior property manager contacted the resident to provide an email address to the resident so that she could email her complaint in. Also, she explained that a letter had been sent to all of the building’s residents about littering and how to report issues.
On 13 December 2021 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord on behalf of 8 other residents of the building in respect of 5 issues occurring at the building. These issues were:
1. Concerns that another resident was in breach of their tenancy agreement by being antisocial and breaching health and safety guidelines. The ASB included littering in communal areas and smearing chicken all over the lift and lift buttons causing it to break down. There was a concern that the additional cleaning would impact service charges.
2. This alleged perpetrator was also thought to be stealing other resident’s parcels. The residents believed that the landlord had used CCTV to identify the alleged perpetrator and it was the view of the resident that the alleged perpetrator should be evicted.
3. The bin store door had been broken since August 2021.
4. A wall in the communal area had been damaged whilst workmen were installing signage and completing repairs. Although these areas had since been replastered they had been damaged again by the same workmen.
5. There were ongoing issues with the building’s intercom which had been reported initially in August 2021 but had started up again.
6. A crude note had been left in a locked communal bulletin board which said ‘a polite note, don’t want to hear anything about your social housing problems. Thank you for your time’.
7. The resident explained her emails, complaints and repairs had gone unanswered or ignored for more than a year.
On 17 December 2021 the landlord received a report that the door entry intercom was faulty ‘again’ and needed to be repaired properly.
On 22 December 2021 the landlord received a report that the bin store door would not secure. This is marked as complete on 5 January 2021.
On and around 23 December 2021 the landlord identified that a notice put up in the communal notice board, which was not an official landlord document, had been posted by a caretaker. The handwritten notice asked residents not to report their issues to the caretaker. The landlord’s internal emails from the time discuss acting on the matter immediately because of the note’s unprofessional nature. The notice was removed within 24 hours of the landlord being notified.
On 29 December 2021 the landlord provided a stage 1 response to the resident.
1. Regarding the ASB the landlord said:
  1. It was sorry that residents had experienced ASB.
  2. It was taking tenancy enforcement action against a resident in the building in response to the resident’s reports. At the time, a Notice of Seeking Possession had been served.
  3. The name and contact details of the community safety officer leading on the case was shared and residents were encouraged to continue to report any further issues.
2. Regarding the bin store door, the property manager had contacted the resident and confirmed that the problem lay with the slow closure mechanism which no longer pulled the door all the way closed to engage the lock. Due to the defects period the developer had been asked to investigate the matter further and complete a repair.
3. Regarding the communal plastering and the intercom, these items had been subject to a complaint which had received a stage 2 response on 21 April 2021. As part of the actions from this stage 2 response updates had been provided by the landlord to residents by both email and letter and evidence of these messages was provided to the resident.
4. As points related to the communal plastering and intercom were still outstanding the complaint was partially upheld.
In January 2023, as part of its ongoing investigation into parcel theft, the landlord’s community safety team leader provided a statement to the Police. It also provided copies of CCTV evidence which appeared to identify the perpetrator of the thefts in order to support the criminal investigation into the theft of parcels.
On 13 January 2022 the resident made a stage 2 escalation request because:
1. The landlord had not contacted the resident since its complaint response on 29 December 2021.
2. There continued to be ASB in the form of another parcel going missing and more mess in the lift.
3. The resident felt that the stage 1 response blamed her for not reporting repairs correctly. She explained that she had to book 5 repairs for the intercom with each one having to be closed and reopened ‘because someone did not log it properly’.
Also on 13 January 2022 the landlord sent a letter to the residents of the block about rubbish and mess in the communal areas. It advised it was considering installing additional CCTV to cover the lift lobby area.
On 30 January 2022 the resident reported an incident of theft to the landlord. She advised it that the Police had also been informed. The resident believed that the perpetrators were known to the landlord and asked it to confirm whether there was enough evidence to ‘get them out of the property’.
Following the resident’s report, the landlord liaised with the Police and confirmed that it had evidence that would assist from the CCTV system and that there was history of parcels being stolen from the building.
On 1 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to say:
1. It empathised that the missing parcel held sentimental value, but the matter fell outside of the complaints policy as there was no service failure.
2. It was handling the report of theft and was liaising with the Police in support of their investigation.
3. As the courier had left the parcel ‘downstairs’ it suggested the resident received advice independently as the conduct of the courier had contributed to the problem.
On 3 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that it was viewing CCTV footage.
Also, on this date the resident contacted the landlord to say:
1. Another parcel had been stolen.
2. Another resident had observed possible theft from a resident in a another flat.
3. The resident asked if the landlord could check the lobby CCTV to find out who had removed notices that had been put up.
On 4 February 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she had discovered her parcel in a bin outside another flat in the building. The resident asked the landlord what it would do about the issue.
On 10 February 2022 the landlord send its stage 2 review response. It said it was considering the following issues:
1. Another resident’s behaviour in the building being unsafe and antisocial and the impact on rent and service charge fees.
2. A resident stealing parcels and the landlord’s response to this.
3. The bin store door being broken resulting in it being used by rough sleepers and people dealing drugs.
4. A recently completed plaster repair job which required redoing as the walls remained damaged.
5. Continued issues with the intercom failing.
6. How the property management team had handled the resident’s reports. Including:
  1. Not returning calls or emails for more than a year.
  2. Leaving a note on the bulletin board which said ‘A polite note, don’t want to hear anything about your social housing problems. Thank you for your time’.
  3. The tone of the landlord’s previous responses blaming the resident for not reporting repairs correctly.
In response the landlord said:
1. The community safety team had been in regular contact with the resident since the stage 1 response.
2. The case had been managed by the community safety team leader who was in the process of reviewing 9 hours’ worth of CCTV footage.
3. It was sorry another parcel had gone missing. It explained that it was committed to acting against one of its residents if they were identified. In addition, the landlord recommended that residents nominated a trusted neighbour or ask for deliveries to be signed for.
4. A block letter had been sent to notify all residents of the issues and the landlords investigation.
5. It confirmed that the intercom repair was raised on 5 January 2022 and the landlord’s engineer inspected and resolved the issue on the 10 January 2022 in line with its non-emergency repair timescales of 28 days. The engineer’s report was provided in the letter. No further faults had been reported since January 2022 and information was provided to contact the landlord if there were further issues.
6. It apologised for issues the resident had reporting the repairs for the intercom and bin store. This had been discussed with the customer service centre team a manager. The view was that the difference in taking repair reports when the building was in defects liability period had resulted in errors. The manager had agreed to undertake additional training for team members.
7. Regarding the bin store door, it was updated as being repaired as of the 5 January 2022.
8. Regarding the rough sleepers gaining access to the bin store, the landlord committed to reviewing security at the site. The landlord was already in the process of communicating with residents about additional CCTV.
9. The landlord had agreed to visit the site to investigate an intermittent fault on the door access when it was used by more than 2 users resulting in the system becoming non-operational. This was a concern due to emergency services recently being unable to access the building.
10. A commitment was made to review the walls / decoration of the communal lobby and to ensure the entire wall or lobby was repaired depending on requirement.
The complaint was partially upheld. This was because the landlord had:
1. Updated how it communicated regarding ASB.
2. Addressed the outstanding repairs.
3. Committed to meeting residents to discuss all relevant issues.
4. Committed to obtain additional quotes for CCTV.
5. Learnt from the resident’s complaint and provided additional training to the customer care advisors about booking repairs at new build schemes in their defect period.

After the final response letter

The landlord’s community safety team leader reviewed the footage and provided a statement and evidence to the Police to support their investigation into the theft of parcels.
On 29 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say that £75 had been accepted as part of the previous complaint about the intercom and plastering however, the intercom was broken again ‘2 days later’.
On 29 April 2022 the landlord provided a further update on its complaint responses. It said:
1. Regarding the outstanding issues that had occurred with the intercom and plastering of communal areas, £75 remained on offer.
2. There would continue to be regular cleaning of the building and additional spot checks as required. Beyond this, the landlord sought to only provide additional cleaning as required as the costs were recoverable as part of the variable service charge which it wanted to keep affordable.
As of November 2023 and the beginning of this investigation the resident has explained that the landlord did not honour its stage 2 commitment to review the plastering in the communal hallway, although it did reoffer £75 compensation which it had offered as part of a previous complaint.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of communal repairs

This investigation has reviewed the landlord’s available repair records. As set out in the summary these records evidence some ongoing issues with the intercom system, bin store door and replastering parts of the communal hallway.
The building was in its defect period which meant that the landlord was not directly responsible for completing repairs. This meant that the landlord was required to pass repairs to the developer so that they could seek to resolve issues.
The landlord’s records show that it maintained oversight of these repair jobs to ensure that they were completed in the timeframes that it publishes in its repairs policy.
The resident complained that the communal hallway plastering had become damaged ‘again’ after being repaired in April 2021 following a previous complaint in which she had been offered £75 compensation. The landlord raised a works order on 23 September 2021 to repair cracking plaster following the removal of notice boards. This job was marked completed on 2 November 2021. This is within the landlord’s 28 day repair policy timeframe.
During the period August 2021 to February 2022 the communal bin store door continued to be faulty, causing issues for the resident with access and security. The landlord repeatedly sought to remedy issues with the bin store security as was appropriate. As the matter became persistent it then required further investigation and additional work to resolve. The landlord completed this with the job marked as complete on 5 January 2021. While the repeat issue was an inconvenience to the resident, the repair logs show that the landlord did actively seek to remedy the issue and the issue was not left without a response for any significant time period. It is reasonable for the landlord to expect the building developers to provide a fully functional intercom system and was reasonable for it to refer repairs to the developer as part of the defect period liability arrangement.
In the resident’s stage 2 escalation request on 13 January 2021 the resident said that she had needed to report repairs repeatedly and that this was due to issues with the way that the landlord had recorded the repair jobs. In the stage 2 reply on 10 February 2021, this was accepted by the landlord who apologised for any inconvenience that the resident may have experienced. In addition, it explained that a now identified that a training error was the likely cause, due to the building being in its defects period and this requiring a different process for the logging of repairs.
In summary, the landlord’s role was to ensure the completion of repairs by the developer in timescales it sets out in its repairs policy. However, some repairs needed repeated attendance in the search for a solution, such as the bin store access door and the intercom, and the landlord demonstrated a commitment to find a solution to the repeated issue.
However, while the landlord did offer an apology it did not fully consider the resident’s time and trouble in having to repeatedly raise the repairs. It also set out in its complaint response a commitment to review the communal plastering with the resident, something which the resident has said did not take place. Therefore, while the landlord did take steps to resolve issues, it has not fully put things right for the resident and has not followed through with its commitments to review repairs as would have been reasonable for it to so. A finding of service failure is made, and a compensation order will be made below.

The landlord’s response to reports of a notice put up by a member of its staff.

The notice put up in the communal notice board by a member of the landlord’s staff was identified and dealt with by the landlord internally in a reasonable and timely manner. Within its internal emails it is clear that such a notice was outside of standards expected from its staff and its actions for its removal demonstrate this.
At stage 2, despite referring to the notice in the list of issues raised by the resident, the landlord does not provide the resident with an explanation into this notice and the landlord’s stance on it. Therefore, it failed to fully respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint which has resulted in a finding of service failure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The resident’s complaints about the landlord’s response to her reports of ASB came during a time when the landlord was working with partner agencies to identify and tackle the nuisance being caused. The different types of behaviour being experienced warranted different responses from the landlord.
The theft of parcels is a criminal matter and it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that the lead agency for investigation would be the Police. The landlord maintained an open approach to supporting any Police investigation as was reasonable for it to do so.
When the landlord identified the resident responsible for littering in the communal lift and hallway, it served a notice of seeking possession in line with its ASB policy which says the landlord will make use of warnings and legal notices when dealing with ASB. The service of a legal notice threatening court action was a significant intervention by the landlord in an attempt to stop the problems being experienced by the resident and this was appropriate action for it to take.
The evidence shows regular communication between the resident and the landlord’s community safety team during the period from November 2020 to February 2021, as was reasonable for the resident to expect. It is also noted that following the stage 1 complaint response, the resident was in regular contact with the community safety team leader who was overseeing and acting on the investigation into the parcel theft.
At the time of the stage 2 response on 1 February 2022 the landlord explained the actions that it was taking to support the Police’s investigation into theft of parcels. It is noted that subsequent communications after the final response letter demonstrate the progress of the landlord in handling this matter and identifying the alleged perpetrator.
In summary, the resident’s complaint was made at a time when the landlord was actively investigating the ASB and was using tools available to it to conduct its investigation. The landlord has demonstrated that it acted on reports, worked with partnership agencies, and acted where perpetrators were identified. The landlord later acted reasonably in making a commitment to increase the site’s CCTV coverage, however it is noted that this is still outstanding and a recommendation has been made below. However, no failing has been identified and a finding of no maladministration has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme there was service failure in how the landlord handled communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme there was service failure in how the landlord handled the report about a notice put up by a member of the landlord’s staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s scheme there was no maladministration in how the landlord handled the resident’s ASB reports.

Reasons

The landlord did not go far enough to provide redress to the resident regarding her need to repeatedly report repairs which had been incorrectly logged. In addition, the landlord made an offer at stage 2 to review the communal hallway plastering, which it did not fulfil.
The landlord did not suitably set out a response to the resident about the appropriateness of the notice displayed in the communal area.
The landlord reasonably investigated communal littering, it also explained the need for the Police to be the lead agency in regard to investigating and progressing theft. It obtained CCTV and reviewed footage to support the Police investigation as required.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that the landlord pays directly to the resident a total of £150 in addition to the £75 offered in a previous complaint within the next 4 weeks made up of:
1. £50 for how it handled the notice in the communal hallway.
2. £100 for handling of communal repairs.
It is ordered that the landlord contacts the resident within the next 4 weeks and arranges an inspection of the communal hallway plastering as required. An update from this inspection should be sent to the resident and to this Service within 8 weeks.
It is recommended that if it has not already done so, the landlord fulfils its commitment to review the buildings CCTV coverage.