One Vision Housing Limited (202213117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213117

One Vision Housing Limited

25 January 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the plasterboard.
3. The grounds maintenance service charges which were applied to the resident’s account.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his car.

Background

The resident had a fixed term assured shorthold tenancy at the time the complaint was made. The tenancy started on 6 April 2021. The resident contacted the landlord about a number of issues from the start of the tenancy until he moved out in May 2023. The property is a 2-bedroom new build house on an estate, which included the construction of a new road. The property warranty period ended on 23 March 2022. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the landlord’s records. The resident, however, has told this Service that he suffers from spondylitis and his wife has arthritis.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. It also says the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs in a reasonable amount of time. The resident is responsible for paying the rent and any other charges that are due. Details on the weekly rent and service charges are included in the tenancy agreement.
The landlord’s repairs, maintenance and planned works policy says:
1. It will deal with repairs and maintenance requests in a timely manner.
2. It takes a ‘right first-time approach’ to repairs.
3. Non-emergency repairs are dealt with within 10 working days.
4. Where a technical survey is required, residents are given an appointment within 48 hours confirming when the work will be completed.
The landlord’s ASB policy says it will:
1. Keep complainants updated.
2. Interview complainants within 5 working days, offer to complete a risk assessment and agree a plan of action with the resident.
3. Record and monitor all actions taken to deal with reports of ASB.
The landlord’s compensation policy says damage caused to resident’s personal property by partner agencies may be an insurance issue and not a claim for compensation.
The resident contacted the landlord on 20 May 2021 and said the new road was uneven and difficult to access. The landlord confirmed on the same day that the site was not complete and the developer still needed to tarmac the road. It apologised and said the work would be completed in the next few weeks. The resident made further enquiries in October and November 2021. He said one of his car tyres had been damaged due to the unfinished roadworks. He also contacted the developer and the council.
The resident made a formal complaint about the road on 6 January 2022.
The developer confirmed on 20 January 2022 that the temporary road works had been completed. It said it was waiting authorisation from the council before it could complete all of the outstanding works. It also said it did not have a completion date, but the road was safe and accessible. The council confirmed on 27 January 2022 that the road was unadopted and the developer was responsible for all works on the site. It also said there were underground cables that needed to be diverted before the road entrance could be formally corrected.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 17 March 2022. The complaint was upheld. It apologised for the delay and said it was working with the developer to resolve the matter. It offered the resident £30 compensation.
The resident reported the plaster board in the living room was not attached to the wall in May 2022. The landlord attended on the 6 July 2022 and identified that a surveyor needed to inspect the wall.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 13 July 2022. He said his neighbour’s children were constantly banging a football and climbing over his fence to retrieve the ball. He said it was causing annoyance, stress and headaches. He made a complaint on 3 August 2022. He said his neighbour was causing ASB by allowing their children to play ball games in the garden. He also said the housing officer made the situation worse by telling his neighbour the children could continue playing ball games in the garden. The landlord treated this as a formal complaint. The resident asked for a number of additional issues to be added to his complaint on 10 August 2022. These included:
1. Visitors to the neighbouring property blocking his driveway.
2. Damage to his car caused by the uneven road surface.
3. Having to pay a service charge for the upkeep of the communal area, even though no service had been provided by the landlord.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2022. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB was not upheld. The landlord confirmed the service charge was for the maintenance of the grass areas at the end of the street.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 31 August 2022.
The landlord told the resident on 1 September 2022 that he would need to make a claim through his car insurance for any damage that was caused. The resident asked for the issue regarding the outstanding plasterwork to be added to his complaint on 4 September 2022.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 September 2022. It confirmed:
1. The housing officer had contacted the resident about the reports of ASB and he had confirmed the situation had calmed down.
2. The resident had been paying a service charge for grounds maintenance services since he moved in on 29 March 2021, but the service did not start until 22 June 2022. It offered the resident a refund of £60.45 to cover this period of time.
3. A job was raised in July 2022 for a surveyor to inspect the plasterboard, but no appointment was booked. It apologised and offered an appointment for 22 September 2022. It also offered £39.55 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
4. There were delays in completing the works to the road due to Covid19, economic challenges faced by contractors and identifying underground services that needed lowering. This had been the subject of a previous complaint in January 2022 and a goodwill gesture of £30 had been offered. It also told the resident he should pursue the matter through his car insurance.
The landlord attend on 22 September 2022 to inspect the plasterboard and works were ordered. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 November 2022 and said the work had not been done. He asked for a copy of the surveyor’s report and said he wanted compensation for the inconvenience, lack of communication and redecoration of the wall, which had previously been refused. The landlord responded on 1 December 2022. It apologised for the delay and said:
1. Its surveyors do not produce formal reports following repair visits. Instead, they assessed the work required and raise the appropriate orders.
2. It would reimburse any decorating costs incurred by the resident.
3. The work was booked in for 22 and 23 December 2022.
4. It would increase its total offer of compensation to £150.
The appointment for the plaster work was cancelled by the resident. The road surface works were completed in May 2023.
The resident told this Service the plaster board repairs were not completed by the time he moved out. He said he had not received any compensation and service charges should not have been applied to his account. This was because he believed the land in question was owned by the council. The resident wants the landlord to pay £500 compensation for the inconvenience caused and to cover the damage to his car and the cost of the wallpaper.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to establish whether the reported ASB occurred, but to determine whether the landlord responded in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures and if its actions were fair in all the circumstances.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 July 2022. He said the children were constantly banging a football and climbing over his fence to retrieve the ball. He also said it was causing annoyance, stress and headaches. The landlord contacted the resident on 20 July 2022 to discuss his concerns. This was appropriate. The resident said the problem had stopped and he did not want anyone to contact his neighbour. The landlord undertook a risk assessment in accordance with its ASB policy.
The resident made a complaint on 3 August 2022 about his neighbour and his housing officer. It was appropriate for the landlord to treat this as a formal complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 August 2022 to report ASB from next door. The landlord opened an ASB case and spoke to the resident on 17 August 2022. This was in accordance with its ASB policy. The resident said he did not want the landlord to contact his neighbour at this point as he had installed a CCTV camera. It was reasonable for the landlord to suggest the resident download the noise app given his reports of noise nuisance from children shouting. Gathering evidence is critical to resolving ASB cases and demonstrates the landlord was being fair and impartial in its approach.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s stage 1 complaint. It did, however, say it would monitor the situation and had arranged a joint visit with the police. This was appropriate and demonstrated it would continue to work with partner agencies, which is key to the ASB, Crime and Policing Act, 2014. The landlord apologised for any upset and frustration caused by the ASB. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this and demonstrated it wanted to work with the resident to resolve the matter.
The landlord visited the resident on 1 September 2022 and agreed to speak to his neighbour. It said it could not stop the children playing ball games in their own garden. This was appropriate and was a reasonable attempt to manage his expectations. The resident confirmed he had downloaded the noise app and agreed he would use it to record any noise nuisance. It was reasonable for the landlord to check the resident was able to do this.
It was appropriate for the landlord to discuss the reports of ASB with the resident’s neighbour. It confirmed the outcome of the discussion in writing on 1 September 2022. The resident was updated on 7 September 2022. He said it had been quiet and no further actions were identified. Given no further reports were received, the landlord told the resident on 29 September 2022 that the case was closed. This was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord’s actions show it took the reports seriously and took action to address the resident’s concerns. This included undertaking a risk assessment and agreeing key actions with the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the plasterboard.

The resident reported the plasterboard in the living room was loose on 28 May 2022. An appointment was arranged as the defect was outside the warranty period. This was appropriate. The landlord attended on 6 July 2022, but it was identified that a further appointment was needed. This was because the wrong details were included on the repair ticket. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have diagnosed the work correctly given the resident’s reports and the previous issues he experienced with loose plasterboard. It was identified a surveyor was needed given the plasterboard was not attached to the wall.
The landlord asked the developer to look into the matter on 8 July 2022 as it believed the loose plasterboard was a defect and given the warranty had only recently ended. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have monitored the situation and provided the resident with an update. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 and 7 September 2022, causing him additional time and trouble. He asked for an update and said he wanted reimbursing for the decorating he had done. He also said the surveyor had cancelled two appointments.
The landlord acknowledged the delays in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised for this and said an appointment had not been booked. It confirmed a surveyor would visit on 22 September 2022, which went ahead. The necessary works were ordered after the visit. This was reasonable and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put matters right. The resident subsequently cancelled the job.
The resident has advised this Service that the issues with the plaster board were not resolved when he moved out of the property in May 2023. He said the landlord never returned to do the work. He also said he was unhappy with the way the landlord handled the reports of the defects and he wanted compensating for the cost of the wallpaper.
In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration, we consider both the events that initially prompted the complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which the landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. In this case, the landlord acknowledged it made mistakes and offered £39.45compensation. It did not, however, follow up on the commitments made in the stage 2 complaint response. This resulted in further delays, causing additional time and inconvenience to the resident. The offer of compensation was not, therefore reasonable.

The grounds maintenance service charges which were applied to the resident’s account.

Details about the service charge and the amount to be paid were included in the resident’s tenancy agreement. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 1 complaint response what these charges were for. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered to reimburse the resident at this point given the service had not been provided and this was a central theme of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord confirmed in its final response that it had not provided the service and offered to reimburse the resident £60.45. This covered the full service charge from the start of the tenancy up to when the service commenced. It also apologised for the mistake. This was appropriate and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident. Accordingly, this Service considers the landlord’s actions to be reasonable redress.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his car.

After carefully considering all of the evidence, this Service cannot investigate the resident’s claims that the damage caused to his car was due to the uneven road surface. Neither can this Service assess whether the landlord was liable for the damage. It would be more appropriate for the courts or insurers to deal with such issues. Nevertheless, we have looked at whether the landlord handled the resident’s request fairly and appropriately.
The Ombudsman recognises that works undertaken by a developer are outside of the control of the landlord. In such circumstances, however, this Service expects landlords to do all they can to manage the situation and proactively pursue any outstanding works or issues. We also expect landlords to act as an intermediary between their residents and the developer.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on the road on 6 October 2021 and said one of his car tyres had been damaged due to the unfinished roadworks. The landlord provided the resident with an update on 7 October 2021 and said it was talking to the developer on a daily basis about the road. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have confirmed at this point what the resident needed to do to make a claim for the damage to his vehicle.
The resident asked for an update about the road on 11 November 2021. He said the situation could become a health and safety matter over the winter months. He also said the landlord had ignored his complaint and would be responsible for any claims that were made. The landlord sent him a copy of its complaints policy the same day. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have logged a complaint at this point. A formal complaint was logged on 6 January 2022.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 17 March 2022. The complaint was upheld. The landlord said the delays in completing the works were due to underground services and it was working with the developer to resolve the matter. It apologised for the delay and said it could not give a completion date. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed the resident’s complaint about the damage to his car at this point.
The landlord advised the resident on 27 May 2022 to contact the developer regarding his request for compensation. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have passed this information on to the developer.
The resident contacted the landlord twice in August 2022 about the damage to his car and said he had provided receipts. He also noted that the developer had paid compensation to other residents. The landlord told the resident on 1 September 2022 that he would need to pursue his claim through his car insurance policy. It was appropriate for the landlord to say this given it does not have the necessary expertise to assess insurance liabilities. It also told him to contact the developer. The landlord also contacted the developer on behalf of the resident and informed him that he needed to provide evidence of the damage. It was reasonable for the landlord to do this.
The resident told the landlord on 4 September 2022 that he was waiting for a response to his claim for damages. He said he had submitted receipts and would not make a claim through his car insurance. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident should pursue the matter through his car insurance policy. It would have, however, been reasonable for the landlord to contact the developer on behalf of the resident and ask for an update.
The Ombudsman cannot determine how the damage to the resident’s car was caused. The landlord’s decision not to compensate the resident was appropriate and in accordance with its compensation policy. It could, however, have done more to act as an intermediary for the resident. Accordingly, there was a service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of defects to the plasterboard.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in relation to the resident’s complaint about the grounds maintenance service charges applied to the resident’s account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his car.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer the resident an apology for the failings set out in this report.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay £300 compensation to the resident. This is to be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused for the delays in carrying out the plasterboard works.
2. £50 for the inconvenience caused for its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage to his car.