Orbit Group Limited (202125495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125495

Orbit Group Limited

23 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s responses to the resident’s:
1. Concerns about the repairs and maintenance of the block.
2. Concern that her email communication to the landlord was blocked.
3. Queries concerning the service charges.
The investigation also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord and lives in a 1 bedroom flat within a block. The resident’s block is located on an estate which has another block of flats.
The resident pays variable service charges to the landlord which contribute toward cost of services delivered across both the estate and the block.
On 5 March 2021 the resident reported a leak in the communal hallway that was located in front of 2 other flats in her block. A plumber attended on the same day and reported back that a roofer was required. It was also reported that the leak only occurred during periods of rainfall.
The leak was reported again on or around 9 November 2021. The contractor attended the following day and reported that it suspected that the leak was coming from underneath the solar panels on the roof. The contractor advised that a roofer was required with a scaffolding to access the area. No further work was completed at the time.

Summary of events

On 1 February 2022 the resident reported her dissatisfaction to the landlord about the maintenance of the block and estate. She mentioned that the leak in the communal hallway had been ongoing since 2021 and was 2 inches away from the communal lighting. The resident explained that as a result of the leak the carpet was ruined and mould was forming on the ceiling in the affected area. As well as this, the resident reported that a window on the first floor of the block was constantly open as it did not have a lock. The resident advised the landlord that she wanted it to review the service charges and consider a reduction and refund of charges paid for the following services:
1. Cleaning of the block and window cleaning.
2. Repairs and upkeep of the block.
3. Bulk waste removal of fly tipped items. She advised that residents from another block on the estate were fly tipping in the shared bin shed.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 4 February 2022 and reiterated her concerns about the maintenance of the block and the outstanding repairs. The landlord advised the resident that the leak was minimal and was not affecting the electrics as she suggested. The landlord also informed the resident that it found the cleaning of the block to be an acceptable standard. The landlord raised repairs for the first floor window lock and also raised a repair for an electric cupboard door on the first floor as the resident reported that the door did not close.
On16 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord after she received the budget statement for the service charges for the year 2022-23. She said that she did not believe that the landlord delivered the services it had charged for and requested the dates as to when services such as the cleaning and repairs had taken place. The resident chased a response from the landlord on 23 February 2022and on that occasion she requested invoices for the services the landlord was charging for.
The resident approached us on 28 February 2022 because she did not receive a response from the landlord. We wrote to the landlord and it raised a stage 1 complaint on 10 March 2022.
The landlord’s Service Charge Team contacted the resident on 18 March 2022. It requested further information from the resident about her service charge query. The resident responded on the same day and reiterated that she wanted the invoices for the services being charged for.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord’s Customer Relations Team, who manage the landlord’s complaints, contacted the resident. It reported that the purpose of the call was to confirm its understanding of the complaint. Notes from the call have not been provided to us. The Customer Relations Team remained in contact with the resident and assured that it was investigating the complaint with the relevant teams.
The resident contacted the landlord and this Service on 12 April 2022 with her dissatisfaction with the time taken for the landlord to address her complaint. She said the issues raised with the maintenance and the repairs were ongoing. With this, she reported that the main entrance door to the block was kept open or slammed unless someone physically shut it. The resident expressed that she did not want to pay service charges on services that were not delivered to the block.
The Customer Relations Team responded to the resident on 14 April 2022 and said that it was waiting for information from the Service Charge Team. It said that once received, it could progress the complaint investigation and provide a conclusion.
The landlord arranged for its contractor to attend to the repairs to the main door, electric cupboard door and window lock in the communal areas on 22 April 2022. On the day of the appointment the resident informed the landlord that no repairs were carried out. She provided a picture of the window with no lock and stated that the block clean was also not completed.
On 25 April 2022 the landlord’s Service Charges Team provided the resident with invoices relating to the 2020 to 2021 end of year service charge account. It also provided:
1. A comparison of the respective service charge budgets for the financial years 2020 to 2021 and 2022 to 2023 with notes explaining the reason for the differences in budget across the two periods.
2. The budget spend and actual spend for the service charges for the year 2020 to 2021, with commentary explaining the reason for any surplus or deficit.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that no costs were incurred in 2020 to 2021 for general day to day repairs to the estate, block or core. It advised that there was a deficit in the year end service charge account for 2020 to 2021 and that this was being carried over and charged to residents’ budget for the year 2022-2023.
On 27 April 2022 the Customer Relations Team advised the resident that after the information received from the Service Charge Team, it was waiting for information from its Estates Team in relation to the communal cleaning. It agreed to provide the resident with an update the following week.
The resident contacted us and the landlord on 13 June 2022, after she chased the landlord for a response and did not receive one on 10 June 2022. We contacted the landlord on 15 June 2022. It wrote to the resident the following day and advised that it was still waiting for information from its Estate Team. The Customer Relations Team said that it would aim to conclude the complaint investigation within 7 days but said it would inform the resident if it could not do so.
On 28 June 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had received the information from its Estates Team and would provide its response by 5 July 2022.
The landlord provided the resident its stage 1 response on 15 July 2022. It said that:
1. It raised a repair on 25 February 2022 after the resident reported that the main front door was being left open. Its contractor attended on 22 April 2022 to ease and adjust the electric cupboard door and the slow closer on the main front door. It concluded that the repairs were attended to within its 90 day timescale for such repairs.
2. It acknowledged that the resident disputed that the contractor repaired the main door and therefore arranged for the contractor to attend again to check the repair within 28 days.
3. The resident confirmed to it that the window lock had been repaired. We have not been able to confirm when this was from the information provided.
4. It previously attended to the leak in 2021 and there was significant delay in it addressing this repair. It confirmed that a roofer would attend to the leak within 28 days of its response.
5. It acknowledged that there was a mark on the ceiling and said this would be painted when the block was redecorated. It advised that the damaged carpet would be addressed once the leak was repaired.
6. Based on the information provided by the Service Charge Team, it could not conclude that the resident had paid service charges for communal repairs in the block.
7. It was required to charge residents through service charges for the removal of fly tipped rubbish in the communal areas. The landlord advised that it was unable to conclude that the resident was being unreasonably charged for the removal of rubbish, as it was unable to identify the person who was responsible for the fly tipping.
8. It was satisfied that the block was cleaned weekly because it had evidence to show that cleaners attended between November 2021 and May 2022. It acknowledged that the resident reported that her video doorbell camera had not detected any motion from cleaners in the floor area in front of her flat. It said that this concern was passed onto the cleaning contractor to ensure they clean the area. The landlord confirmed the procedure for the resident to report instances when the cleaning was not carried out.
9. The communal windows were cleaned every 2 months and the last 2 visits took place on 14 March and 9 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the resident previously reported that its contractors did not clean the windows. It said that it was sorry if there were times when the contractors did not do so. It confirmed that the resident should not be charged for occasions when the cleaning to the block or communal windows was not carried out and reiterated how the resident could report any issues with the services.
The landlord concluded its response to the complaint with an apology for the time taken for it to provide its response. It partially upheld the complaint on this basis and offered the resident £160 compensation for its complaints handling. It said that in addition to the delay in the response, the offer was also to reimburse the resident for the cost of the video doorbell she purchased. The landlord confirmed that it had provided feedback to its Estates Team about the time taken for it to provide the information for the investigation.
On 8 September 2022 the resident informed the landlord that she wanted to reopen the complaint because the leak in the communal hallway was ongoing. She also reported that the rear entrance door to the block had been broken for the last month. The resident said that she requested a call from the Estates Team on 9 August 2022 but did not receive a call back. She also said that she wanted a move from her flat due to the ongoing issues she was experiencing, which included the repairs as well as anti social behaviour (ASB) which she explained was causing her distress.
On 20 September 2022 the Customer Relations Team wrote to the resident apologising that it had missed a call from her the week before. It asked the resident to respond to it via email with details of what she wanted to discuss. The resident responded on the same day and said that the leak was causing issues with the communal smoke alarm and emergency lighting. She also reported that the rear entrance door of the block required repair. The resident said that she wanted compensation for the service failures by the landlord.
On 23 September 2022 the resident forwarded a copy of her response to the landlord dated 20 September 2022, to an email address of the landlord. We understand the email address was its Customer Relations Team’s former contact email. Shortly after she sent the email the resident emailed several individual members of the landlord’s staff, as well as third party organisations, including us. In this, she explained that she had just received a notification that her emails to the landlord were blocked. She advised that she attempted suicide in August 2022, had extreme mental health issues and was constantly trying to contact the landlord to repair the leak. She requested the landlord provide her with an urgent management move and advised that she felt disheartened by the way she had been treated.
The resident reported that after sending the email to the landlord on 23 September 2022, she called it on the same day and spoke with a staff member from the Customer Relations Team. She states that the staff member said during the call that her emails had not been received and she had been blocked from emailing it. The resident said that the staff member advised her that the landlord’s Data Management Team would contact her. The Customer Relations Team also sent an email to the resident after the call advising her that it did not receive her email response to it dated 20 September 2022.
We wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2022 for clarification on the status of the resident’s complaint. The landlord confirmed on 5 October 2022 that it had raised a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord also raised a separate stage 1 complaint about the resident’s concern that her email communication to it had been blocked. It provided its stage 1 response to the complaint on 31 October 2022. It acknowledged the information the resident said she was given when she called and spoke to its Customer Relations Team on 23 September 2022 but said that it could not retrieve the recording of that call. The landlord confirmed that it had not blocked any form of communication from the resident and said the issue might be with the resident’s email provider. The landlord confirmed that it found an issue with its complaint handling because, in error, it had sent the resident a letter about the complaint with the incorrect name. It partially upheld the complaint on this basis and offered the resident £150 compensation. The landlord confirmed that it was going to escalate the complaint because the resident informed it during a conversation on 28 October 2023, that she was not happy with the outcome.
Between 5 October and 23 November 2022, an officer from the local council’s Environmental Health Team contacted the landlord after completing a survey of the resident’s block on 25 September 2022. The officer asked the landlord to take action to address the following issues found:
1. The main front door to the block had a defective self-closing device and was not closing to the frame effectively.
2. A smoke detector head to the communal ceiling in the area the leak was occurring had been removed and there was mould growth to the ceiling and damp staining to the carpet beneath.
The landlord’s Complaints Team spoke with the resident on 21 November 2022. She confirmed that the outstanding complaints were about the ongoing leak and the issue of the landlord not receiving her emails. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgement letter on the same day confirming that it would be investigating the 2 outstanding issues.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to the complaints on 24 November 2022. It confirmed that an inspection of the block was completed on 23 November 2022 and that the following work had been raised as a result:
1. A repair to the flat roof area.
2. Removal and renewal of the ceiling boards.
3. Installation of insulation.
4. Renewal of lighting and smoke detector.
5. Testing of the landlord power supply.
6. An overhaul of the communal main doors.
The landlord advised that the repairs had not been booked as yet but agreed to keep the resident updated on the details of appointments and oversee the work through to completion. The landlord said in relation to the matter of the resident’s emails not being received that it understood the resident was told by its staff that her email address was blocked by the landlord. It apologised for the frustration and confusion that had been caused to her. It confirmed that it investigated the matter with its IT Team and that the resident was not blocked. It suggested the resident speak with her email provider.
The landlord apologised for the delays in the repairs, its communication and the resident’s time and trouble pursuing the matters. It offered the resident a total of £831 compensation comprising of:
1. £671 for the delay in the completion of the repairs. The landlord noted that it calculated compensation up to 90 days from its response because the repairs raised had a target completion time of 90 days.
2. £30 for failed appointments. The landlord did not clarify what failed appointments it identified.
3. £50 for the upset and inconvenience of having to chase the repairs.
4. £30 for the misinformation from the Customer Relations Team.
5. £50 for poor complaint handling.

Post complaints procedure

The resident responded to the landlord’s final response on 25 November 2022. She said that she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered and reiterated that the leak was outstanding. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response and agreed to contact her in due course.
The landlord sent the resident a follow up letter on 15 December 2022. It reiterated its offer of compensation and confirmed that the repairs raised would commence on 19 December 2022. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day it sent the letter and reiterated her dissatisfaction with its response. Included in the resident’s email were specific staff members of the landlord, the landlord’s Customer Relations Team and a generic email address for the landlord.
On 16 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord an image of an email notification she received. The email notification advised that the email sent on 15 December 2022 had not been deliverable to the landlord’s generic email address that was copied in. The landlord acknowledged the image provided of the notification and agreed to get back in touch with the resident in due course.
On 13 January 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with an update on the actions it agreed in its final response. It confirmed that all repairs were completed between 5 and 6 January 2023. It acknowledged that the appointment scheduled for the repairs to start on 19 December 2022 was missed, apologised and explained that the reason for this was due to a concern raised about the position of the scaffolding that was up at the time. It confirmed that the leak was found to be the result of condensation forming due to an area of mislaid insulation and not water ingress via the roof as originally believed. It confirmed that the insulation had been replaced correctly to resolve this. It confirmed that a post inspection of the work would be completed on 20 January 2023.
In relation to the email communication, the landlord confirmed that it investigated the matter again after the resident provided it with a copy of the notification she received that her email had not been delivered. It reiterated that the resident was not blocked but that it found that there was an auto-redirect setting applied to the generic email account that the resident included as a recipient in her email. The landlord explained that this meant that all emails to that particular email address were being automatically redirected to another email address. The landlord advised that when the resident attempted to email the account on 15 December 2022 the system tried to apply the auto direct rule which resulted in the email circulating and not delivering. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed that it had removed the auto direct rule setting. It confirmed the email address the resident should use in the future.
The landlord said that it had considered the events relating to the complaint since its final response in November 2022 and increased its offer of compensation to £1,081. This comprised of its previous offer of £671 for the delays in the repairs and revised compensation for the following:
1. £50 for failed appointments (including the appointment on 19 December 2022).
2. £150 for upset and inconvenience.
3. £60 for the misinformation provided.
4. £150 for the complaint handling.
The landlord also acknowledged that the resident reported again that the carpet was damaged from the leak. It confirmed that it was satisfied that the carpet was dry and would remain so after the repair to the leak was fixed. It said that the communal doors were also inspected again and that it received video evidence from its contractors showing that the main front and rear doors closed and locked.
The parties remained in contact thereafter and the resident reported in February 2023 that the smoke detector was full of water and not replaced as the landlord had arranged. She confirmed that the landlord’s out of hours team attended and replaced this. The landlord responded that it attended on 7 February 2023 and found the area where the leak had been remained dry.
The resident referred her complaint to us and said in March 2023 that she wanted us to investigate her complaint because she felt the landlord had not answered her question about why her emails were blocked. She also said that she did not feel that the landlord had answered her questions about the service charges. Specifically, she advised that the carpet in the communal area was stained and she was paying for this weekly and the landlord had not refunded her for this.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 19 June 2023 to report that the leak was ongoing in the communal area. She advised that she did not consider that the leak was fixed in January 2023, as reported by the landlord.
The landlord raised a new formal complaint and provided its final response to that complaint on 11 September 2023. In this the landlord confirmed that it was satisfied that the leak had been resolved in January 2023.
In a conversation with this Service on 8 November 2023 the resident confirmed the leak was resolved at present.

Assessment and findings

Relevant policies and procedures

In accordance with the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord has the responsibility for repairs within the communal areas.
The landlord’s repair policy confirms that it prioritises repairs as either emergency, routine or non-responsive. Routine repairs are described as any responsive repair that is not an emergency and should be completed within 28 calendar days. Non-responsive repairs are described as major repairs that are grouped together and included within stock investment programmes to deliver value for money, such as roof replacements. The landlord aims to complete major repairs within 90 days.
The resident is required to pay variable service charges for services delivered to the block and estate. This includes:
1. Cleaning to the internal areas, communal windows and door glass.
2. Door entry repairs.
3. Door entry system service contract.
4. Bulk waste removal from communal areas of the estate.
5. Bulk waste removal for the resident’s specific block.

The landlord’s response to concerns raised about the repairs and maintenance of the block.

The landlord has appropriately recognised that there was a significant delay in its response to the repair to the leak in the communal hallway. We acknowledge that after March 2021 the leak was not reported again until November 2021, 8 months later. Nevertheless, the landlord was on notice from March 2021 that a roofer was required to investigate the source of the leak but it did not complete the work to address the leak until 6 January 2023.
The description of the leak and the frequency of the reports support that the leak was not consistent but occurred during some periods of rain. Given this, it would be reasonable for the landlord to categorise the repair as routine and complete the repair within 28 days. However, the landlord took 22 months to address the repair which was a significant amount of time outside of its routine repair target.
In addition to addressing the leak the landlord agreed in its initial response to the complaint that the mark on the ceiling from the leak would be painted when the block was redecorated and that the reported damage to the carpet would be addressed when the leak was remedied. This was a reasonable agreement for the landlord to make to remedy the areas affected by the leak. This Service notes that the Environmental Health officer also reported the damage to the ceiling and the carpet to the landlord after visiting the block in September 2022.
This Service has seen evidence in the form of images from the landlord’s contractor that show redecoration work was carried out to address the mould to the ceiling. Images taken by the contractor also show that the carpet has damp staining as reported by the resident and the Environmental Health officer.
In its follow up response to the resident in January 2023, the landlord stated that it was satisfied that the carpet was dry. While the carpet was found to be dry, there is evidence of damp staining to the carpet. The landlord has failed to follow through on its initial agreement to address the damage to the carpet and has offered no explanation as to why it no longer felt any work to the carpet was necessary. Given this, an order has been made below for the landlord to assess the carpet and confirm its position regarding any remedy that may be required.
We acknowledge that the resident has reported that after the leak was remedied in January 2023 it was ongoing. The parties’ position on whether or not there was a further leak differs, with the resident insisting there was a leak and the landlord stating there was not. The landlord confirmed that it erected a scaffolding to the roof in June 2023. It said that following this it completed investigations and found no water ingress but said it completed preventative repairs to a nearby flat roof.
There was a period of 5 months before the leak was reported again in June 2023 and the matter has been considered under a separate complaint investigation. Given this, the landlord’s response to the resident’s report that there was a leak from June 2023 will have to be considered under separate investigation if the resident wishes to pursue the complaint with us.
In regard to the landlord’s response to the other repairs reported in the communal area, the landlord raised repairs on 4 and 25 February 2022 for the lock to the window, the electric cupboard door and the main front door. This Service has not been able to ascertain when the window lock specifically was completed however, we are aware from the information provided that the earliest that all of those repairs were completed was 22 April 2022. It was therefore, at least 55 days before the landlord addressed the repairs. This was outside of its target timeframe for routine repairs.
After the landlord attended to main front door in April 2022, the Environmental Health officer reported to it on several occasions from 5 September 2022 that the door was not closing properly. This Service has not been able to confirm from the repair records when the contractor attended to the door after these further reports. Nevertheless, the video evidence from the contractor showing the closure of the front and rear main doors was taken either on or around 5 January 2023. In the 4 months between the Environment Health officer’s report about the door in September 2022 and January 2023, there is no evidence that the landlord took steps to respond to the report within its repair timeframe.
When the contractor attended to the main front door in January 2023 it reported that no issues were found with the doors and the videos of the doors have been provided to this Service to show this. Having reviewed the videos sent it was reasonable for the landlord to accept the contractor’s findings as the doors were recorded as closing flush with the frames. Despite not finding a fault with the door when it attended in January 2023, there was a delay in the landlord taking action after receiving the report about the main entrance door from the Environmental Health officer. The report it received from the Environmental Health officer indicated that the issue believed to be with the door was compromising its fire safety and allowing unauthorised entry into the block. Given this, it is expected that the landlord would have responded promptly to ascertain whether there was in fact any need for an urgent repair to the door after the report on 5 September 2022.
The landlord concluded in its response that it attended to the repairs in the block, except for the leak, within its 90 day timeframe for such repairs. However, the 90 day target time the landlord referred to is for major repairs and not routine repairs as defined within the landlord’s policy. The repairs reported in the block would be classed as routine as they were not major works but responsive repairs which were not emergency repairs. The landlord took at least 78 days to attend from when the repairs were raised on 4 February 2022 for the window lock and electric cupboard door. Following this, it failed to attend within the 28 day response time for routine repairs, or sooner given the concern about fire safety, to assess the main front door after it was reported again in September 2022 by Environmental Health. Therefore, contrary to the landlord’s finding, there was a delay in it addressing these repairs.
To investigate the resident’s concern about the cleaning of the internal area of the block and the communal windows, the landlord investigated this matter with its Estates Team to respond to the complaint. The landlord confirmed that it was satisfied that the cleaning had been completed on a weekly basis and this Service has seen the attendance records to support this finding. In addition to the cleaning, the landlord has evidence that window cleaning has been completed, but only for 2 occasions in the 6 months between January and June 2022.
The landlord’s specification for cleaning confirms that window cleaning is to take place on a bimonthly basis. Given this, it is expected that a window clean would have taken place in January 2022 but there is no evidence that it was. As the landlord was unable to demonstrate that the window cleaning was carried out prior to March 2022, it was appropriate for it to offer apologies to the resident if the window cleaning had not been carried out.
Although the landlord had records to demonstrate that the cleaning was carried out, the resident reported to it that she had evidence to show that the floor area in front of her flat was not being cleaned. The landlord took appropriate action to raise this with its contractor. The landlord also explained to the resident how she could report if the cleaning to the block and the windows was not carried out in future, which was reasonable for it to do given the concerns the resident raised about the services.
In relation to the repairs to the communal areas there were significant delays in the landlord’s response to these. The landlord has partially recognised the delays when acknowledging the time taken to the address the leak. However, it has not recognised that it incorrectly applied major work timeframes to routine repairs.
Regarding the concerns raised about the maintenance of the communal areas, the landlord has relied on evidence to draw its conclusions about the delivery of the cleaning services. It has also recognised the lack of evidence that the windows have been cleaned prior to March 2022 and apologised for this. The landlord also provided appropriate information to the resident about how she could raise concerns about the cleaning delivered to the block and the actions that it could take if a report was received.
The extent of the delay in the completion of the repair to the leak has particularly had an impact on the resident who had to chase the landlord for several months. Specifically, the resident was chasing the landlord regarding the repair to the leak from February 2022 until December 2022. This is a considerable length of time and required a significant effort on the resident’s part. The resident has detailed within her complaint the impact her interactions with the landlord was having on her mental health. In addition to this, there is evidence to demonstrate that on at least 2 occasions in September 2022, she asked the landlord for a management move. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a response to these requests. We are aware that the resident’s reasons for wanting to move included another issue she was experiencing with ASB. But the landlord’s failure to address the leak within a reasonable time and failure to respond to the resident’s request for a management move would have exacerbated the overall impact on the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy confirms that it may award compensation if its service is considerably lower that the standard expected. It notes that it will consider compensation if the customer has experienced significant distress or inconvenience. The policy advises that the landlord will also take into consideration whether:
1. The customer has incurred financial loss as a result of the service.
2. The customer has lived in poor conditions longer than a reasonable time due to a service failure on its part.
The landlord’s policy does not provide prescriptive amounts of compensation which it should offer. It offered the resident £671 for the delays in the completion of the repairs. In addition, it offered the resident £50 for failed appointments and a further £150 for the upset and inconvenience of having to chase repairs. The total compensation offered in relation to the service failures identified in its response to the repairs was £871.
Our remedies guidance states that where maladministration has been found in the delivery of service that has been found that has a significant impact on the resident, orders between £600 and £1000 are proportionate.
In this case, the impact on the resident is considered to be significant as especially demonstrated in the content of the resident’s emails to the landlord chasing the repair to the leak. The landlord’s offer of compensation is therefore considered proportionate to reflect the overall delays. Its offer of £150 goes some way to acknowledge the upset and inconvenience caused to the resident but does not appropriately reflect the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s request for a move or its failure to follow through on the remedy it agreed to do to address the carpet.
This Service is aware that as of November 2023 the landlord has considered and agreed a management move application from the resident. Nevertheless, its failure to address her requests for this at earlier stages was a failure and therefore an additional order of compensation has been made to reflect this. The resident was evidently distressed and made it clear that ultimately she wanted to be moved from the property. It was unreasonable for the landlord to not respond to this or offer the resident advice about how she could seek a move from the flat.
Considering the landlord’s overall response to the matter there has been a service failure. The reason for the service failure finding is that the landlord has addressed the substantial matter of the complaint and has offered compensation to reflect the delays and part of the inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord has not fully put things right in its response to the complaint. Specifically, it did not respond to the resident’s request for a move at the earliest opportunity and did not follow through on its agreement to address the associated damage to the leak damage to the carpet.

The response to the concern that the landlord had blocked her email communication.

The resident raised the concern about her emails not being delivered to the landlord on 23 September 2022. The landlord took the appropriate action to respond to this as it made enquiries with its internal IT team to investigate whether or not the resident’s email communication had been blocked.
However, it took the landlord several weeks to investigate the matter and come back to the resident with its finding. From the records provided to us, it is apparent that landlord did not confirm to the resident that she was not blocked from emailing it until sometime around 28 October 2022 before it provided its stage 1 response to the complaint on 31 October 2022. This means that it took the landlord over a month to offer the resident reassurance that she was not blocked from contacting it via email as she believed.
Given the level of concern raised by the resident when she raised the issue on 23 September 2022, it is reasonable to expect that the landlord would have offered reassurance to her much sooner than it did.
When the resident sent the landlord the image of the notice she received that her email had not been delivered on 15 December 2022, the landlord took the necessary steps to investigate the issue again. Using the additional information that the resident provided, the landlord consulted with its internal IT team who provided clarification about why the resident’s email had not been delivered to the email address in question.
The resident reported to the landlord that its staff members had advised her that her email was blocked. The landlord has not been able to present evidence to contradict this therefore, it was appropriate for it to acknowledge the resident’s account of what happened and apologise to the resident for any upset caused to her as a result of any incorrect information she may have received from its staff that her email had been blocked.
Having seen the copy of the notification that the resident provided to the landlord, it does confirm that the resident’s email dated 15 December 2022 was not delivered to the landlord’s generic email address specifically. The notification explains that this was due to a mail flow rule that had blocked her message from being delivered. This is line with the landlord’s explanation as to why the emails were not delivered.
This Service notes that the resident’s email dated 15 December 2022 also included other email addresses of the landlord and there is no indication that the email failed to deliver to the other email addresses included.
As well as offering an explanation as to why the issue with the resident’s email was occurring, the landlord took steps to avoid the issue recurring based on what it had found. Specifically, it asked for the mail flow rule to be removed and confirmed the correct email address for the resident to use in future. In addition to this, the landlord recognised that the information its staff members were reported to have provided to the resident caused her confusion. It offered the resident £60 in recognition of this.
The landlord’s offer was appropriate to reflects the confusion and worry caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to provide clarity about the matter sooner.

Queries the resident raised concerning the service charges.

The resident complained that she did not believe that the service charges she was paying was reflected in the service the landlord was delivering. In addition to this, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the increased level of the service charges based on the budget for the financial year 2022 to 2023.
In accordance with paragraph 42d of the Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints that concern the level of a service charge or service charge increase. Such matters may be referred to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chambers) (FTT) which considers all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable.
However, we can consider how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about the charges including the information it provided the resident in respect of the charges.
Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) allows a resident to obtain further information about service charges by inspecting accounts and receipts. The Act explains that a resident may write to the landlord asking it to allow them access to and the inspection of the accounts, receipts and any other documents relevant to the service charge information. In accordance with the Act, the landlord must within one month of the request make such information available.
In the resident’s case the landlord failed to provide the resident the invoices relevant to the service charges that she requested within the 1 month timeframe. After the resident requested information relevant to the charges on 16 and 23 February 2022 it took the landlord 2 months before it provided the requested information on 25 April 2022.
Before it provided the information to the resident the Service Charge Team contacted the resident on 18 March 2023 for additional information and apologised for the delay in its response to the resident’s query. It was appropriate that it apologised for the delay up until that point but it then took another 5 weeks to provide the invoices requested. In the complaint response, the landlord failed to recognise or acknowledge the overall delay in it providing the information.
The resident was required to chase responses and repeat her requests for the information relevant to the service charges, despite her request being clear from the outset. The landlord has offered some redress in the form of an apology for part of the delays however, not the overall delay. Therefore, in recognition of this, an additional order of compensation has made to reflect the landlord’s failure to provide the information relevant to the service charge in the timeframe set out in the Act.
When the landlord eventually provided the information requested it was thorough. In addition to the invoices the resident requested, the landlord provided an explanation as to why there had been an increase in the budget for the upcoming year. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s concern about the increase, as it provided clarity about where the additional costs were coming from.
As well as providing the information about the service charges, the landlord answered the resident’s specific concerns about the charge for the rubbish removal. Its explanation for the rubbish removal charge was also in line with its guidance on refuse and rubbish. The guidance explains that the landlord can act to remove and dispose of fly tipped waste and will recover the costs of this through service charge paid for by residents of the building.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as being when a customer expresses a dissatisfaction with a service they have received from the landlord. This definition is in line with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process.
When the resident submitted her complaint, the landlord’s policy in place stated that the landlord would endeavour to provide its response within 10 working days. If an extension was required this would be by a further 10 working days. If more time was needed beyond this to investigate a complaint, the landlord would contact the customer to discuss this and explain the reasons why.
The landlord revised its complaints policy in September 2022. This states that the landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the customer’s review request. If there is a need to extend a complaint review the landlord can extend the response date for up to another 10 working days.
The Code expects landlords to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, the Code states that if this is not possible, an explanation and a date by when the stage 1 response should be provided and that the extension should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord should have treated the resident’s email to the landlord on 1 February 2021 as a complaint. In it she stated that she was constantly raising issues and was not being heard. The resident had to chase the landlord and seek assistance from us before the landlord acknowledged and logged the complaint on 10 March 2022, more than a month after it received the complaint.
As well as taking a significant time to log the compliant, it also took the landlord several months to provide its response a stage 1. The Customer Relations Team explained to the resident that the reason for the delay was due to waiting for information from its Estates Team. The internal records the landlord has provided shows this. The Customer Relations Team also made some effort to keep the resident informed of the delays. However, this was not consistent. After 27 April 2022 there is no evidence of the team providing the resident with an update on the complaint despite its promise to.
As a result of this, the resident had to contact us again for assistance on 13 June 2022 after she chased the landlord and did not receive an update regarding its complaint response. When we contacted the landlord following this, it agreed to provide a response but did not meet the date set for 5 July 2022. There is also no evidence it notified the resident in advance that it could not provide the response by the date. The landlord eventually provided its stage 1 response on 15 July 2022, 107 working days after the complaint was made.
In the stage 1 response the landlord apologised for the delay in its response, explained the reason for this and confirmed that feedback had been passed to the Estates Team. The landlord also offered compensation for the delay. This was appropriate for it to do given the unreasonable delay.
The landlord has demonstrated some learning from it stage 1 investigation. In the revised complaints procedure published in September 2022, the landlord set out the expectations on its internal teams to provide information to support complaint investigations. The expectations detail the timeframe during which internal teams are expected to provide information requested for a complaint and the type of information that is considered necessary. We have seen that in the resident’s case the Customer Relations Team was required to chase the Estates Team over months for information that was required for the complaint investigation. Incorporating a standard for internal teams within the revised complaints procedure is appropriate as it provides the expectations on internal teams in supporting the investigation of complaints.
While the landlord has demonstrated some learning from its stage 1 investigation, it failed to implement any learnings in other areas. Specifically, those learnings relating to the time taken for it to provide its complaint response.
The resident requested the escalation of the complaint on 8 September 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge or log the escalation of the complaint until 5 October 2022. It did not provide the resident with its stage 2 response until 24 November 2022. This was beyond its 20 working day timeframe in its policy and was a total of 55 working days after the resident submitted her request.
On 5 October 2021 the landlord also recorded a separate complaint regarding the resident’s concern that the landlord had blocked her email communication. This was appropriate for the landlord to do given the issue was newly raised on 23 September 2022. The landlord’s stage 1 response recognised that it had sent a letter to the resident that was addressed to the wrong name, when informing her that its response would be delayed. This Service has not seen a copy of the letter however, it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the error, explain why it happened and offer the resident £150 compensation for the error.
This Service notes that the landlord’s final response dated 24 November 2022 included responses to the 2 complaints the landlord previously responded to at stage 1 under sperate investigations on 15 July 2022 and 31 October 2022. The landlord explained the reason it combined the review of the complaints at stage 2 was because when it spoke with the resident on 21 November 2022, she confirmed that the outstanding issues were regarding her emails not being received and the leak in the communal hallway. It was the landlord’s decision to combine the complaints and it communicated this to the resident in its acknowledgement, which was appropriate.
In the landlord’s final response, it agreed to take actions to address the repair to the leak which remained outstanding at the time it provided its response. It followed through on its promise and sent the resident updates in December 2022 and January 2023. Within the complaint follow up letters, the landlord revised its offer of compensation for its complaint handling to £150. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s time and trouble, having to contact us for assistance with the complaint.
While it was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the poor complaint handling, the level of compensation offered is not considered proportionate to reflect the extent of the delays. In relation to the complaint submitted in February 2022, it took 5 months for the landlord to respond at stage 1 and more than 2 months for it to provide a response at stage 2.
The landlord has not demonstrated any learnings from the stage 1 investigation in that it did not promptly log the stage 2 complaint or keep the resident informed about the delays in providing the stage 2 response. The level of compensation goes in some way to reflect the delay but does not reflect the resident’s efforts to pursue the complaint and the avoidable distress and inconvenience to her having to pursue her complaint.
This Service has therefore found that there has been a service failure by the landlord. To put this right, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation for the impact of the above complaint handling failures on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there has been a service failure by the landlord in its response to the concerns raised about the repairs and maintenance of the block.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the scheme, the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress in response to the resident’s concern that it had blocked her email communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the queries concerning the service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has offered redress to reflect the delays in it addressing the repairs to the block. However, a service failure has been found because the landlord has not fully put things right in its complaint response.
The landlord completed the necessary investigations to establish that it did not block the resident’s email communication. Using the information presented by the resident, it was able explain why the resident’s email did not deliver to the specific email address and applied changes so that the issue could not happen again. The landlord also acknowledged that information its staff may have provided information that caused confusion, upset to the resident, and offered compensation by way of apology for this.
The landlord has not offered the resident appropriate redress to reflect its failure to provide the information requested in support of the service charges within the required timeframe of 1 month.
Although the landlord has offered compensation for its complaint handling, the level of compensation offered does not reflect the efforts the resident had to make to pursue the complaint due to the significant delays by the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

It is ordered that within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1331 inclusive of the compensation it offered in its response to the complaint. This comprises of:
1. £1081 offered in its response to the complaint.
2. £50 for the failure to respond to the resident’s earlier requests for a move.
3. £50 for the failure to fulfil the agreement to remedy the damage to the carpet.
4. £50 for the delay in the response to the query about the service charge.
5. An additional £100 for its handling of the complaint.
The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies that may be owed by the resident to the landlord. Once the compensation has been paid, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.
Within 4 weeks the landlord is to arrange an inspection of the communal carpet and confirm what, if any remedy it can apply to the area of the communal carpet that was affected by the leak. The landlord is to feedback its findings to the resident. If the landlord finds that no remedy is necessary, it should explain this to the resident and provide evidence to support its decision. A copy of the landlord’s findings should be provided to this Service.
It is recommended the landlord ensures that its Customer Relations Team revisit its repairs and maintenance policy for clarity on its repair categorisations when assessing whether the landlord has appropriately responded to repairs.