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

One Housing Group Limited (202218052)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218052

One Housing Group Limited

3 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of 
  1. Issues with lighting within the communal parts of the building.
  2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. The resident’s son acts as an advocate for the resident in communication with the landlord. For ease of reference, both the resident and her son will be referred to as the resident throughout this report.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 3 September 2022, as the landlord had not responded to reports the resident had made about faulty lights within the communal areas of the building on 27 November 2021 and 13 January 2022. The resident followed this up on 25 January 2022 as they had received no contact from the landlord.
  3. The resident advised in the complaint that there were frequent failures of communal lighting within the building, with poor repair work and poor communication from the landlord in relation to this. The resident was concerned that the lights were failing despite repair and regular testing, the same lights were failing repeatedly, and that when lights were replaced, they were a different shade to the lighting that had been initially installed. To resolve this matter, the resident was seeking:
    1. A formal apology from the landlord
    2. Confirmation as to why the operatives were not feeding back the repeated failures in the lighting to the landlord.
  1. A copy of the repairs history and maintenance logbook for the building.
  2. The landlord to absorb the cost of these repairs rather than including them in the service charge, as compensation.
  1. The landlord provided a formal response to this complaint on 26 September 2022. The landlord advised it could not find copies of emails sent by the resident in November 2021 or January 2022, so offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill in view of this. The landlord advised it had attended site on 3 occasions in 2022 regarding reports of faults with the communal lighting and found on two of the three visits, that the lights were functioning correctly. The landlord confirmed that while there was some difference in the colour of lighting, and while it would normally attempt to replace like for like, this did not pose a safety concern. The landlord advised it would not be upholding the resident’s complaint regarding a lack of effective action in repairing the lights.
  2. The resident requested that this was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 28 September 2022, advising they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response. The resident wanted confirmation from the landlord that lighting was working in both general and emergency modes, and that the lights should have a far greater lifespan that they were proving to have. The resident advised that following a walkthrough on site with the landlord on 15 September 2022, the operative noted that it was unusual that so many lights had failed. The resident again advised that a mixed temperature of lights was not acceptable, and the residents pay a management fee and should receive a good quality standard. The landlord carried out a further visit to the building on 26 September 2022 in which it established that 19 lights required new gear trays and batteries.
  3. The landlord provided a stage two response to the resident on 26 October 2022. The landlord confirmed that the communal lighting had been tested in line with legislative requirements and was found to be satisfactory. The landlord found that the level of repairs to the lighting was not excessive based on the battery life of the lighting. It confirmed all repairs and maintenance were being carried out by the landlord’s inhouse electrical team. It confirmed that the newer lights were a slightly different brightness, but this did not present a safety concern. The landlord advised the only way to overcome this would be to replace all old fittings with the newer ones, and it would need to carry out a consultation with all residents prior to this work being carried out. The costs of this would be chargeable to residents through their service charge because changing older lightbulbs which were still working would be considered as an improvement rather than a repair.
  4. The resident followed this up with the landlord on 11 February 2023 as they had not received any further communication from the landlord regarding the consultation about this lighting. They noted that there were still issues with the lights they had reported as part of the formal complaint. The resident again followed this up with the landlord on 6 May 2022 as they had been given no further update. The resident noted that while the lights were fully functioning within the block, they had been chasing this for 9 months and this was not a reasonable timeframe and again raised the possibility of the landlord absorbing the costs of these works as compensation for these delays. The landlord acknowledged this and advised this would be passed back to the person who handled the stage two complaint as it was in relation to an agreed outcome of this. The landlord advised again it would need to go through a resident consultation regarding any change to lighting throughout the block, due to costs being payable by residents as part of the service charge.
  5. The landlord issued the consultation survey to all residents on 17 August 2023.
  6. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord due to the timeframe it had taken to progress this matter, as well as the inconvenience this had caused to them in having to chase the landlord. The resident is seeking an apology from the landlord and for the costs of any replacement works to the light to be covered by the landlord by way of compensation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of issues with lighting within the communal parts of the building.

  1. The resident raised concerns regarding the communal lighting within the building not matching. In response, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the replacement lights were the same serial number as the original lighting that was fitted, but there was a slight difference in colour in the newer models. The landlord confirmed that while this did not pose any safety risk to the resident or anyone else within the block, it would carry out a consultation with all residents regarding upgrading the old lights to ensure consistency. The landlord had explained to the resident that this would not be considered a repair, this would be considered an improvement, as this was regarding the aesthetics of the lights, not the safety aspect. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord, and it demonstrated it was taking the resident’s concern seriously, but also ensuring it would correctly consult all residents regarding this matter prior to any works being agreed. The landlord would need to arrange a consultation as this cost would be payable via the service charge and were not essential in maintaining the building. The landlord is not required to carry out improvements, it is only required to maintain its properties. The landlord had demonstrated that it considered the resident’s request thoroughly and provided an appropriate and reasonable response, which balanced the needs and of other residents who would be affected with the resident’s request.
  2. The landlord did not progress the consultation until 17 August 2022, 204 working days after the stage two complaint response. This service acknowledges that a landlord has a responsibility to carry out consultation with leaseholders prior to any works that may cause financial impact on the service charge of leaseholders. However, this service would expect the landlord to progress this within a much more reasonable timeframe, as well as maintaining communication with the resident throughout this process. In not doing so, it caused inconvenience for the resident who had to chase for updates from the landlord. This was a missed opportunity from the landlord as had it maintained communication with the resident through this process, it would have reassured them it was taking this matter seriously and it was doing all possible to progress this.
  3. The resident raised concerns with the landlord regarding the lighting failing within the block and the quality of the repair work being carried out. The landlord’s own Electrical Technical Protocol Guidance states:
    1. all electrical works will be carried out in accordance with the relevant British Standard, approved code of practice or associated good practice guidance.
  4. The resident had raised concerns with the landlord over emergency lighting not correctly functioning and the potential risk associated with this. It is clear from the landlord’s repair records that the landlord attends the site regularly to carry out flick tests to the emergency lighting within the block, as well as an annual drain down to check all emergency lighting, which is evidenced in the landlord repair logs, copies of which the landlord had provided to the resident. The landlord advised that all emergency lighting is tested in line with current legislation and requirements. This is reasonable from the landlord to ensure that this is functioning correctly and for the safety of the residents within the block. This was also confirmed to the resident as part of the stage two complaint response. This was reasonable from the landlord as it should have demonstrated to the resident that it was acknowledging their concern, but also that the landlord was acting in line with its current legal requirements.
  5. As part of their formal complaint, the resident had raised and issue with 12 lights not functioning both internally and externally at the block, with the landlord attending the block with qualified operatives on both 15 September 2022 and 26 September 2022 to establish any issues within the lighting and to replace batteries in lighting that was not correctly functioning. This was a reasonable response from the landlord to attend to further investigate these issues and attempt to rectify this within its own routine repair timescale of 28 days. The landlord confirmed in its stage two complaint response that the emergency lighting was functioning correctly and was found to be satisfactory, and in line with legislation. The landlord should have responded specifically to the resident regarding the lighting he had referred to as part of his complaint, but this Service acknowledges that the landlord had made a general comment on all lighting within the block. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its qualified contractors concerning the repairs needed to the lighting system and whether this was working. The landlord had considered the resident’s concerns regarding a failure of the lighting system within the block and arranged site visits to further investigate this. This was a reasonable response from the landlord, and it confirmed there was no wider issue with lighting within the block.
  6. The resident raised further concern on 11 February 2023 that the same lighting was not functioning. The landlord confirmed it attended site on 26 September 2022 where it established that 19 LED lighting gear trays needed replacement. The gear tray is what the LED lighting and wiring is mounted onto. There is no indication in the landlord’s repair log of any job being raised to complete these works, nor confirmation to the resident when these works would be taking place. This service would expect the landlord to log these repairs at the point of identifying any issue to ensure the gear boxes were replaced within a reasonable timeframe, in line with the landlord’s own repairs policy. It was confirmed to this service that these lights had remained unrepaired until the work was fully completed in May 2023. This being 8 months after the resident had logged these repairs within their complaint. This was an unreasonable delay in these works being completed and fell outside the landlord’s own timescales for routine repairs of 28 days. The landlord had reasonable opportunity from the resident’s formal complaint to carry out investigations and repair the lights, but it had failed to do so. This was unreasonable from the landlord.
  7. The resident had requested as part of their formal complaint that the costs of lighting repairs would be absorbed by the landlord as compensation rather it being recharged to leaseholders. While the landlord had advised that the lighting in the block had been functioning safely, it did not directly respond to the resident regarding this point. This led to the resident having to follow this up with the landlord, which repeatedly failed to provide a reasonable response to this request. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident whether this was being considered or not and explaining the reasons for its decision. In not doing so, it failed to reasonably address this aspect of the resident’s complaint and caused further frustration for the resident. This was not reasonable from the landlord.
  8. The landlord had failed to provide responses to the resident regarding lighting repairs which led to the resident raising a formal complaint due to poor communication from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged this in the stage one complaint response and offered the resident £50 compensation for its poor communication, in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, which states that an offer of up to £50 would be made where there has been no significant impact or distress, but an offer is to be made as a token of the landlord’s responsibility.  While the landlord should have responded to the resident sooner, it had acknowledged its failing, apologised, and offered the resident compensation in relation to this. This offer was reasonable and in line with this service’s published remedies guidance, which states that orders can be made in this range where there was minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided which caused some inconvenience and/or distress to the resident. This was a reasonable offer of compensation for the resident for the landlord’s failure to acknowledge aspects of their complaint at stage one, but reasonably addressed them in its stage two response.
  9. Following the landlord’s stage two complaint response there had been further instances of poor communication from the landlord with the resident regarding the lighting consultation, and a failure to reasonably repair lighting. While this Service acknowledges the offer of £50 compensation to the resident, due to the repeated delays of works being completed outside of the landlord’s own repair policy and poor communication with the resident following the stage two complaint, this offer is not proportionate for the impact on the resident. This demonstrated that the landlord had not learned from the earlier issues of poor communication with the resident, for which it had previously apologised.
  10. In line with this service’s remedies guidelines, the landlord should offer additional compensation of £250 due to unreasonable delays in the lighting being repaired, and poor communication throughout this process, leading to the resident having to repeatedly chase for repairs. This bringing the total compensation to £300 for this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range are appropriate where the landlord had made an offer of action/compensation but is not quite proportionate to the failing identified by our investigation. While the delays caused inconvenience to the resident and caused them to have to repeatedly follow this up with the landlord, the landlord did complete the repair works to the lighting and progressed with the consultation with all residents.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that all complaints should be acknowledged within 3 working days with the complainant being contacted by phone and or/email where possible. A full response must be sent within 10 working days. Where extensions to the deadline are required, the landlord should confirm this with the resident. This extension must not exceed a further 10 working days. The landlord will provide full response to stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 3 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 September 2022. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 16 September 2022 that there would be a delay in providing a full response, with a new deadline of 26 September 2022, which is when the landlord provided a complaint response. The landlord had reasonably confirmed to the resident that there would be a delay in the response and then provided the stage one complaint response within a reasonable timeframe. Whilst any delay would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, the landlord’s response was in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy and what this service would see as a reasonable timeframe for responding to a stage one complaint, in line with the Complaint Handling Code (published online), which sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices.
  3. The landlord provided a full stage two complaint response to the resident on 26 October 2022, 19 working days after the resident had requested this was escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. This was in line with the landlord’s own complaints policy, and the complaint handling code which allows 20 working days for stage 2 responses.
  4. The landlord had failed within the stage one response to fully respond to acknowledge or respond to aspects of the resident’s complaint, which the resident had advised had caused him to escalate their complaint. It was unreasonable for the landlord to fail to acknowledge and response to these points, and this may not have given the resident the confidence that his complaint was being taken seriously, or the landlord was actively trying to resolve the issues that were raised. However, the landlord had reasonably responded to these aspects of the complaint at stage 2 of its complaints process which went some way towards resolving this error.
  5. As a result of this, there is a finding of service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord should pay £100 compensation to the resident for its failure in its handling of this complaint, in line with this service’s published remedies guidance. The remedies guidance says that there should be awards in this range when there were minor failures by the landlord in the service it provided, and it did not appropriately acknowledge these and/or fully put them right.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in handling of the resident’s report of Issues with lighting within the communal parts of the building.
  2.  In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £400 compensation. The compensation is broken down as follows:
    1. £300 compensation for the landlord’s not completing repairs to lighting within a reasonable timeframe, poor communication, and failure to progress agreed actions from the stage two complaint. £50 should be deducted from the total if this had already been paid as part of the landlord’s stage two complaint response.
    2. £100 for the landlord’s failure in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  2. The landlord to provide the resident confirmation of the next steps following the consultation with residents about changes to the lights and the outcome of this consultation if it has not done so already.
  3. The landlord is to confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of this report.