Onward Homes Limited (202220340)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220340

Onward Homes Limited

30 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 regarding the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding his building security and the standard of service, including whether the service offered value for money.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since November 2007.
At a tenants association meeting on 17 May 2022, the resident made the landlord aware that resident’s within the building were unhappy with the security service provided. He advised that the security team remained within the back office throughout the night and resident’s felt they were paying for a service which did not exist. The landlord advised that it had plans to review and retender the security service, however these plans had been superseded by other, more pressing issues within the building.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 September 2022. He advised that the leaseholders within the building were paying for a night time security service, and had been requesting that the landlord review that the service was value for money since 2010. The resident stated the night time security team were not visible and provided very limited security. He stated the service received did not represent the high premium that is paid. The resident advised of an area near the front entrance which would be an adequate station for the security team. The resident further advised that the leaseholders were seeking a refund of their service charges paid towards the security services.
The landlord spoke with the security contractor regarding the leaseholder’s concerns. It agreed that the security team would be stationed within the residential reception from 6pm-10pm Monday – Friday to improve visibility. This was confirmed by the security contractor on 21 September 2022.
On 22 September 2022 the landlord provided its stage one response. It confirmed the security team was not contracted to sit within the reception area, however they did make regular patrols of the building so they could identify and address any security issues. The landlord stated that security not being stationed within the main reception did not prove that the service was not being delivered at the required level. The landlord went on to confirm an increase in costs for the security service over the last few years, it explained that this was due to the security company offering employees a living wage. The landlord confirmed that a review had taken place of the security service. It went on to confirm the amendment to the security contract meaning more visibility within the reception area. It stated that it did not uphold the leaseholder’s request for a refund of service charges.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2022 and advised that he was dissatisfied with the stage one response. He stated that the response did not advise of a stage two escalation process and asked for confirmation of if an escalation was possible. He stated that if the complaint could be escalated to stage two, he would provide a detailed response to the stage one for consideration. No response was provided by the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 25 November 2022. It advised that it was satisfied a full investigation had been completed at stage one. It apologised for a delay in acknowledging the complaint, its failure to answer a query and providing an undated stage one response. The landlord offered £150 compensation for delays experienced by the resident.
The resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome and by way of resolution is seeking a review of the security service contract where the residents are included and consulted along with compensation for the poor delivery of the security service.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident has reported that issues regarding the security services have been ongoing for a significant period of time. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that are not brought to the attention of a landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the reported issues from 1 March 2022, that being six month prior to the resident’s initial complaint and the final complaint response, issued 25 November 2022. However, actions taken by the landlord outside of this period may be referred to in this report for context.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding his building security and the standard of service, including whether the service offered value for money

Leaseholders within the resident’s building pay a service charge for the provision of a 24-hour security service. The security service assignment instructions state that when on duty Monday to Friday during the day, under normal circumstances, staff are to be based at the reception desk from 7am to 6pm unless completing patrols or checks. At other times staff are to be based as advised by the landlord. Two internal patrols are to be carried out each shift.
Out-of-hours routines stated staff are to be based at the reception desk on Saturdays from 7am to 1pm unless completing patrols or checks. At other times staff are to be based within the back office. Two internal patrols are to be carried out each shift.
At a tenants association meeting on 17 May 2022, the resident made the landlord aware that residents within the building were unhappy with the security service provided. He advised that the security team remained within the back office throughout the night and residents felt they were paying for a service which did not exist. The landlord advised that it had plans to review and retender the security service, however, these plans had been superseded by other, more pressing, issues within the building.
This Service can see that in internal correspondence, the landlord confirmed for itself that its requirement under the lease was to provide a full-time attendant, but this did not have to be at all times. It was therefore not inappropriate that it did not agree to a 24-hour service.
In June 2022, the landlord wrote to the security contractor and requested an amendment to the contract. The requested amendment would allow for the security team to be based within the reception area during the evening. Though the provision of the security service does not state that the security staff have to be within the reception area during the evening, the landlord decided to request the amendment. This shows that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and was making an attempt to be amenable to the resident’s requests even though, contractually, it did not have to.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 1 September 2022. He advised that the leaseholders within the building were paying for a night-time security service, and had been requesting a review regarding the value for money of said service since 2010. The resident stated the night-time security team were not visible and provided very limited security. He stated that the team were housed within a back office which was locked to residents and the windows were blocked with opaque film. This meant that the security team had no idea who was entering the building during the evening and were unable to observe the resident’s car parking area. The resident went on to state that the service received did not represent the high premium that was paid. The resident advised of an area near the front entrance which would be an adequate station for the security team. The resident further advised that the leaseholders were seeking a refund of their service charges paid towards the security services.
The landlord contacted the security company on 7 September 2022 requesting an update on the proposed contract amendment. The landlord chased this update on 14 and 15 September 2022. On 21 September 2022 the security contractor confirmed that the contract would be amended with instruction for security staff to cover the business reception between 7am and 6pm, Monday to Friday and the residential reception between 6pm and 10pm, Monday to Friday. It was appropriate for the landlord to continue chasing for the requested change and seek confirmation of it.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 22 September 2022. It stated that the security team was not contracted to sit within the reception area, however they did make regular patrols of the building to identify and address any security breaches. This was accurate information and important to share to manage the resident’s expectations.
The landlord confirmed that numerous communications and meetings had clarified its position on the review of the services. In a letter dated 8 April 2022, it confirmed that it would conduct a review and, depending on the outcome, the landlord may retender the service and the residents would receive a section 20 notice. The outcome of the review established that the security contractor was working within the requirements of the contract, and as such it had no basis for remedial action. The landlord stated the outcome of that review was confirmed to leaseholders in the bi-monthly action plan produced in June.
It should be acknowledged that the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the letter dated 8 April 2022, however its contents has not been disputed. Again it was appropriate for the landlord to conduct a review into the service standard when concerns were raised. The outcome of this review raised no concerns and as such no further action was taken. It would be unfair to expect the landlord to have taken any remedial action, when it had been unable to gather any evidence which showed a poor service. It appears that the outcome of this review was effectively communicated to residents, this was appropriate.
The landlord stated that the security team being situated outside of the reception area did not prove that the service was not being delivered at the required level. It confirmed that regular meetings were held with the security contractor and it had not been made aware of any recent security breach that would suggest the patrols were not effective. It was appropriate for the landlord to investigate any recent security breaches when the effectiveness of the service was questioned. Landlords are expected to make decisions based on evidence not assumptions. As such it was appropriate for the landlord to conclude that the current security arrangements were effective as the evidence showed no breaches had been raised (although it is acknowledged that the resident suggested there had been).
The landlord confirmed to the resident that the security company had agreed to a contract amendment and advised of the new arrangements. It acknowledged that these discussions had taken longer than anticipated and apologised for this delay. It was appropriate for the landlord to communicate the change in arrangement and also acknowledge and apologise for the delay.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 25 November 2022. It stated that it was satisfied that a full investigation had been conducted at stage one.
The landlord provided the Ombudsman with numerous communications between itself and the security contractor. These communications detailed issues and concerns that had been raised by residents and staff regarding the behaviour of security staff. Each of these incidents were reported swiftly to the security contractor by the landlord and appropriate action requested. As such it can be seen that the landlord did take an active role in mitigating any lapses in the standard of service provided. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the landlord could have done more to keep the resident informed of the steps it was taking to raise his concerns with the security contractor internally. This would have demonstrated to the resident that it was aware of issues and taking steps to right them.
The landlord has directly advised the Ombudsman that it would not be practical to have the security team stationed within the reception area at all times. It stated the team was not contracted to sit within the reception area and are entitled to sit in the back office. The landlord advised that the back office holds all of their required files and inspection information as well as contact numbers. It stated these cannot be stored within the reception area due to data protection so the team being based within the office is a more practical solution. This is accurate in line with the security services contract, there is no requirement for staff to be situated within the reception area 24/7.Given the requirement for staff to access files which can only be held within the back office, it is reasonable to have staff stationed there when appropriate.
It is important to note that the resident raised concerns over the standard of service provided and whether residents were receiving value for money. The value for money of a service can be questioned even when the standard of the service is deemed to be high. As such, the Ombudsman will now consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the value for money of the service.
Within its stage one response, the landlord confirmed slight increases had been seen to the cost of the security service over the last few years. It explained that this was due to the security contractor increasing rates in order to offer its employees a living wage. The landlord stated that there was no evidence to suggest the current service did not offer value for money. While the landlord states it had no evidence to suggest the service was not value for money, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence of any sort of investigation the landlord may have undertaken to verify this.
The landlord went on to state that until it conducted a test of the market it would be unable to say whether other providers could offer a better value service. This is accurate and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have explained if it would then conduct a test of the market or provide reasoning as to why it could not. This would have shown the resident that his concerns regarding value for money were being taken seriously and the landlord was open to assessing the value of the service.
The landlord confirmed that its intention to review and retender the service had not changed, however it had been superseded by other, more pressing matters, within the building. The resident advised that leaseholders within the block had been requesting a review of the service with a view to finding a more cost-effective option since 2010. Although not as far back as this, the Ombudsman is aware that there were historical requests from leaseholders raising concerns about whether value for money was being achieved.
While it is important that landlords use their resources effectively and target the areas of most need and highest risk first. It is not appropriate to continually postpone activities which are being requested by stakeholders. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the delays in the review process and better communicate and indicate when it would be looking to review and potentially retender the security contract.
The landlord has provided evidence to the Ombudsman which shows numerous conversations between itself and the security contractor. The landlord advised the security company of its need to provide good value for money and requested review of the services with a view to reducing costs. However it does not appear that the residents have been made aware of these conversations or their outcomes. It was appropriate for the landlord to explore a review of the security services to reduce costs, however this should have been communicated with the residents and they should have been provided with an opportunity to express their views on the matter.
The landlord has also advised the Ombudsman that the building is shared with a number of commercial freeholders, as such the residential leaseholders pay approximately 21% of the security charge and the commercial freeholders pay approximately 71%. This means the freeholders would have the majority say in any provision of services. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made the resident aware of this. This is important to manage expectations when it comes to the residents wish to review the service.
The landlord did not uphold the resident’s request for a refund. This is appropriate as, although the landlord may not have been able to evidence that the service was good value for money, it did conduct a review of the service standard and evidenced that the service was being provided in line with the contractual agreement. As such it would not be fair to expect the landlord to refund service charges for a service which was being provided appropriately.
Ultimately, in this circumstance it is clear that the landlord did acknowledge the resident’s report of service standard issues. The landlord indicated that it had reviewed the service and found no faults. Even so, the landlord discussed and implemented an amendment to the contract allowing for more visibility of the security team during the evening. This was appropriate and proportionate action to take. However, the landlord did not properly communicate with the resident regarding the value for money of the security service. The resident was repeatedly told the landlord would conduct a review however no timeframes were provided. This did not effectively manage the residents expectations.
If the resident wishes to challenge the reasonableness of the service charges in question, he can seek further advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service on how he can take this forward.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It states landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days and a stage two complaint within 20 working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days without good reason.
The resident raised his initial complaint on 1 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 22 September 2022, 14 working days following the initial complaint. This is not in line with either the landlord’s complaints procedure or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, however 4 days is not a significant failure and the impact to the resident will have been negligible.
Paragraph 5.8 of the complaint handling code states that a stage one response should provide details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer. This is important as residents may not be aware of the landlord’s complaints process and, if not signposted, may not know that a complaint can be escalated if they remain dissatisfied. The landlord’s stage one response did not provide these details. This is not in line with the complaint handling code and forced the resident to have to make contact to get confirmation of the escalation process. This prolonged the complaint process and ultimately delayed a resolution.
The resident asked for confirmation of the landlord’s complaint escalation policy on 2 October 2022. He advised the landlord that following confirmation he would submit a detailed response to the stage one complaint for consideration at stage two. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of a response to the resident’s query.
The landlord provided it stage two response on 25 November 2022. If the resident’s letter dated 2 October 2022 was considered as the escalation request, which the evidence provided would suggest it was, then this response was provided 39 working days following the request. This is not in line with either the landlord’s complaints procedure or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The resident had made clear to the landlord that he intended to provide a response to its stage one for consideration at stage two. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged this and provided the resident with a deadline for this response. However, the landlord instead provided a stage two response prior to the resident outlining what he remained dissatisfied with.
As the resident had suggested a number of inaccuracies were present within the landlord’s stage one response, he should have been afforded the opportunity to clarify any facts he wished to challenge. This would have allowed the landlord to provide a full response to his concerns and clarify any of its previous responses. As the landlord did not provide the resident with this opportunity, the response provided did not address his concerns and meant that he had to escalate the complaint further. This not only added to the resident’s time and trouble but delayed a resolution.
At stage two the landlord offered £150 compensation for complaint handling delays. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is proportionate considering the delay.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding his building security and the standard of service, including whether the service offered value for money.
In accordance paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is:
1. To pay the resident £100, in recognition of its failure in its response to the resident’s concerns regarding his building security and the stand of service.
2. To confirm in writing that it will make clear, to the resident, when it intends to consider whether the current contract offers value for money in comparison to similar services and that the resident/residents association will be involved in the decision making process to ensure all parties are happy with the services being paid for.
3. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.