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

Peabody Trust (202114311)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114311

Peabody Trust

18 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. Disputed service charges relating to the door entry system, communal repairs, fire safety works and lift repairs and maintenance.
    2. The level and reasonableness of service charges.
    3. Concerns regarding fire safety within the building.
    4. The associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) the following complaint issues is outside of jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the level and reasonableness of service charges.
  2. Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. A leaseholder may challenge the reasonableness of a service charge by applying to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The landlord’s service charge demands must include a summary of the leaseholder’s rights and obligations including the right to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal. The resident may wish to raise his case with the First-Tier Tribunal if he feels that the charges are unreasonable. The Ombudsman’s investigation does not include commentary on the reasonableness of the service charge as this falls within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal rather than the Ombudsman.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat.
  2. The fire service served an enforcement notice on the landlord dated 12 March 2021. This stated that the landlord had failed to comply with duties placed upon it by the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 in respect of the building containing the resident’s property. It required work to be undertaken by 27 August 2021. This included work to door closers and the automatic opening vent system (AOV), along with the removal of decorative timber battens and reinstatement of 30 minutes fire resistance. It stated that the landlord’s fire risk assessment’s “significant findings” had not been implemented.
  3. The landlord completed a test on the automatic open vent system (AOV) on 12 March 2021. This indicated that the landlord needed its fire risk assessor or engineer to assess and confirm the design suitability. The landlord raised a works order on 2 June 202. The repairs record of 21 June 2021 detailed the landlord would need to serve a Section 20 notice (Section 20, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985) to the residents as the quote exceeded £5,000.
  4. The landlord raised a further works order on 2 July 2021 to carry out remedial works in respect of fire safety following its inspection. The landlord’s repair record of 9 July 2021 detailed that the system on site was a bespoke system showing multiple faults. It detailed that a full report and quotation was provided to the landlord.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 31 July 2021. He raised queries concerning fire safety work that had been undertaken and he was unhappy with black paint that had been applied. He also enquired regarding the maintenance of the wet risers and sprinkler system. He stated that no Section 20 notice had been served with regard to this work and assumed that the cost was to be covered by the landlord or the developer. The landlord emailed the resident back on 4 August 2021. It advised that the wet riser or sprinkler system was subject to an annual wet test. It advised that the cost estimated for 2019 to 2020 was £600. It stated that the previous year’s cost was nil which it felt was an accounting error. The landlord advised that no consultation had been carried out as the work did not go over the statutory limit of £250 per leaseholder. It stated that fire resistant paint had been applied to provide 30 minutes of fire resistance and that this could be changed.
  6. The landlord’s repair records indicate that its contractor attended the building on 13 August 2021 to replace batteries in the AOV panels, along door closers. The contractor replaced a power supply on one AOV panel. Work to repair damaged fire doors was marked as completed on 20 August 2021.
  7. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 August 2021 in response to the resident’s service charge dispute. It apologised that it had not responded to the resident’s email of 6 April 2021. It provided an explanation and a cost break down in respect of the costs of fire equipment and risers that had been £2,356.15. It had raised the resident’s queries regarding the warranty period in respect of the door entry system and building work in the communal area to its homeownership team. It requested that the resident contact this team with these queries.
  8. The resident emailed the landlord again between 25 and 27 August 2021 in respect of his service charge dispute. He advised that he had gone to the office to view the landlord’s records but was awaiting spreadsheets that the landlord had promised. He advised that the landlord had wrongly attributed an amount of £1,000. He queried the fire safety works. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 August 2021 to answer to the queries. It stated that its leaseholder team would confirm costs associated with fire safety works.
  9. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 September 2021 and 6 October 2021. He advised that the landlord had provided excel spreadsheets for the transaction costs but he had noticed discrepancies. He asked what the next stage would be in the landlord’s complaints process.
  10. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 28 October 2021 to advise that he had raised a complaint but had not had a complaint response from the landlord. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord the same day to request it to provide a stage one response.
  11. The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 15 December 2021. It stated that the cost apportionment was based on the floor space of each unit. It provided a cost breakdown for the servicing of fire equipment. It advised that there had been an error for the CCTV charge which it had since removed from the resident’s account. It stated that the estate service is apportioned between 2 blocks of 73 units. It stated that the costs for the block containing the resident’s property was 34.25%. It stated that the apportionment advised in a booklet was wrong and it had under recovered the costs.
  12. The resident requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2021 as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s explanation of service charges and its complaint handling. He asked for a refund of charges that had been applied that he felt were in error. He requested a breakdown of the AOV testing split by tenure as the block was not included in the landlord’s costs.
  13. The resident emailed the landlord between 31 January 2022 and 24 February 2022 to chase up the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman on 24 February 2022. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2022 to chase up its stage 2 complaint response.
  14. The landlord sent a further stage 2 complaint acknowledgement on 15 March 2022 and advised that it would respond within 15 working days.
  15. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 March 2022 to confirm the complaint issues concerning the service charge queries, the landlord’s management of the lift and door entry for which there were repeat call out charges. He was also concerned regarding the charges for fire safety and the landlord’s delay in fixing fire safety issues that led to a fire safety enforcement case by the fire service. He requested compensation and a refund of the service charges.
  16. The landlord emailed the resident on 25 March 2022 to arrange a phone call to discuss the resident’s complaint. This was arranged for 6 April 2022. The resident then chased up the landlord between 14 April 2022 and 27 May 2022 for its stage 2 complaint response. In the landlord’s email of 27 May 2022 it advised that the lease defines the building as a whole and if a costs associated with communal doors would apply.
  17. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 1 June 2022. In this the landlord advised:
    1. The costs are equally split under the terms of the lease rather than by tenancy type. However, the cost for the ventilation unit relates to costs within a home and that this had been removed from the overall service charge.
    2. It stated that the lifts were under warranty and that no charge would be passed to leaseholders. It stated that it is not unusual for lifts to require repairs and that some could be as a result of misuse. It reported that there was no major issues with the lifts.
    3. Its home ownership team had responded to the resident’s fire safety concerns. It advised that it is not uncommon for a landlord to receive notices from the fire service. It had completed the work and contacted the fire service to advise so that a reinspection could occur. It stated that it would not normally notify residents of completion of works following a notice unless it is part of a S20 requirement as this would significantly increase the cost of each repair.
    4. It advised that it had responded to the resident’s complaints within a reasonable time frame. However, it acknowledged that the rents and service charge team’s responses were delayed due to high turnover of staff. It had taken this up with the team. It offered £100 compensation for the “significant delays” and apologised for this.
  18. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response and referred his complaint to the Ombudsman on 12 August 2022. As a remedy, the resident wished the landlord to apologise, to write off service charges that the resident would not be liable for or explain which clause in the lease makes the resident liable. The resident wished the landlord to conduct a fire risk assessment to ensure that there are no fire safety risks within the building.

Events following the end of the internal complaints process

  1. Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord updated its webpage for residents in the block on 30 September 2022 to advise that in line with the Building Safety Act that all qualifying leaseholders in buildings over 11 meters cannot be charged for cladding remediation work. It advised that in respect of the EWS1 form that since the new protections came into force that provided a mortgage application meets individual lenders’ policy and regulatory requirements that lenders will lend on buildings where there is an agreed and costed remediation plan in place, or where developers will remediate themselves or where buildings are captured under a recognised government scheme, for example, the Building Safety Fund).
  2. The landlord’s webpage update for residents of 13 April 2023 indicated that cladding remediation work was due to be carried out by the original developer and work to the balconies was the landlord’s responsibility. It advised that once completed that this would achieve a EWS1 B1 rating which lenders would accept. It was considering the costs provided for value for money.
  3. The landlord received a further fire service enforcement notice dated 25 October 2023. This detailed the landlord’s failure to review its fire risk assessment and to ensure adequate maintenance systems were in place to ensure the premises and facilities, equipment and devices would be maintained in an efficient state, and in effective working and in good repair.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. put things right, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of investigation

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, for the purpose of this investigation the timescale considered is six months prior to the resident’s formal complaint to his landlord of 25 August 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising.
  2. The resident has indicated that he has raised separate complaints with regard to the landlord’s handling of maintenance of the lift and with regard to antisocial behaviour and individuals accessing the building through a defective door entry system. The resident may wish to refer these later complaints to the Ombudsman if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.

Policies and procedures

  1. According to the lease the resident is required to pay the rent and a “specified proportion” of the service charge monthly in advance.
  2. The lease specifies that the service charges for the service provision covers expenditure “reasonably incurred by the landlord” in connection with the “repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the building”. This includes insurance, repairing, redecorating and renewing the structure, lighting and cleaning of the common parts and heating and hot water. It also includes compliance with notices, regulation or order of local or other authority. The definition of the common parts includes the parts of the building that can be used in common by any leaseholder, other tenants and occupiers of the building.
  3. According to the lease the landlord is required insure the building against loss. It is required to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew the structural parts of the building, the roof, foundations, joists and external walls and service media and machinery and plant. It is also required to maintain, repair, redecorate and renew service media, cisterns and tanks, gas electrical, drainage, ventilation, water apparatus and machinery and common parts.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy details that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and non-urgent repairs within 28 calendar days. The landlord aims to complete programmed repairs within 60 calendar days.
  5. The landlord’s operates a 2 stage complaints policy. The landlord will respond at stage one within 10 working days. If an extension is required it will contact a resident to advise. An extension can be up to 10 working days. It will respond at stage 2 within 15 working days.
  6. The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation payments are made when there has been delay or a resident has incurred additional costs because of a service failure, or if it has failed to adhere to published guidelines. This includes poor complaint handling and failure to provide a service that has been charged for. It will pay leaseholders up to £400 for time, trouble and inconvenience, and up to £100 for poor complaint handling.
  7. The landlord’s fire safety policy states it will maintain a rolling programme of fire risk assessments and estate inspections to identify, manage or remove potential fire hazards on estates. It will review subsequent recommendations and close these through its reactive and planned maintenance, repairs or estate improvements. It will maintain a programme of electrical testing and maintenance for homes. A measure of success is that no enforcement notices will be issued.
  8. Reference has been made in this report to an EWS1 form. This is an external wall survey form required by lenders for buildings over 18 meters high and assists leaseholders in buying and selling their homes.
  9. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it will not charge a resident for the cost of a service “where their property is physically excluded from the benefits of that service, and where the lease, covenant, deed of transfer or tenancy agreement does not prescribe the method of apportionment for those sharing the costs of that service”. It will apportion service charges according to an individual lease. However, if the lease does not include a specific apportionment it will be based on square footage. It will review service charges annually and the service charge will be adjusted where it does not reflect the services provided. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that service charge disputes are dealt with through the complaints policy.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning disputed service charges relating to the door entry system, communal repairs, fire safety works and lift repairs and maintenance.

  1. The landlord’s email of 25 August 2021 indicated that the resident’s had raised issues with his service charges in his email of 6 April 2021 and it rightly apologised for the delay in answering his queries. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s earlier email. The landlord’s explanation of the delayed response was that the resident’s enquiry was being dealt with by 2 different teams. Whilst this may have been the case, it should not have taken 4 months for a response to be made. It also indicates evidence of internal communication and record keeping issues in that the landlord was unable to coordinate a timelier response. The landlord then failed to provide a response in respect of the resident’s queries concerning the door entry system and warranties. It put the onus on the resident to contact a specific team to discuss this issue. This would have caused the resident unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience in having to raise the queries again. Given the response was already delayed, this was unreasonable.
  2. The landlord arranged for the resident to access its records in relation to the service charges which was appropriate and in line with its obligations. It then provided the resident with a spreadsheet covering the financial years from 2018 to 2019 and 2019 to 2020. The resident pointed out errors in the spreadsheets and the landlord subsequently agreed to refund amounts that had been wrongly charged to the resident which was appropriate under the circumstances. These errors concerned service charges that were levied in respect of individual flats as opposed to the communal costs. The fact that the amounts were wrongly attributed would not have given the resident sufficient confidence in the landlord’s record keeping and service charge account management. The resident’s lack of confidence in the robustness of the landlord’s account management meant that the resident felt the need to go through the landlord’s spreadsheet of charges line by line causing him time, trouble and inconvenience. As errors had been made, it was understandable why the resident felt the need to do this.
  3. Good and accurate record keeping is essential for a landlord to have a full understanding of the condition of its properties, and ability to provide accurate information to its residents. Given the record keeping issues identified within this investigation, the landlord must carry out a self-assessment of its record keeping practice. It can use the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website to do this.
  4. The landlord did provide timely responses to the resident’s queries at times, for example, between 27 August and 2 September 2021. However, its leasehold team needed to respond to some specific cost queries. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the landlord’s further response that was promised at this time. This was a failing as the resident would have been expecting this response. The queries were not addressed until the landlord’s stage one complaint response was issued on 15 December 2021. The response was therefore unreasonably delayed.
  5. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 15 December 2021 advised of the cost breakdown and the percentage of the costs attributable to leaseholders. It is of note that this percentage, whilst accurate if based on a total of 73 flats of which 25 are leasehold, is not specifically referenced in the resident’s lease. The lease does refer to the whole building’s common parts including those used by leaseholders and tenants, however. The implication being that the costs would apply to leaseholders for the whole building and common parts as the landlord specified. The landlord may wish to review the terms of future lease agreements to ensure that percentage cost breakdowns are accurately set out. The landlord also referred to information within a booklet regarding the costs being inaccurate and it should ensure that it reviews the information provided to its leaseholders for accuracy.
  6. The stage one response also pointed out another error that had occurred in respect of the charge for CCTV of £175 which it said should not have accrued and was to be removed. This again would have not given the resident confidence in the accuracy of the landlord’s records and service charges being charged to him. As the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response, he requested an escalation of his complaint to stage 2.
  7. The Ombudsman has seen no further responses to the resident’s service charge queries until the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement of 15 March 2022. This was in response to the Ombudsman writing to the landlord for it to progress the complaint. The landlord at this point arranged a phone call which was appropriate so it could understand the outstanding complaint issues and the resident’s disputed service charges. However, there was unreasonable delay in the landlord’s final stage 2 response which was not issued until 1 June 2022.
  8. In respect of service charges for the lift repairs, the landlord’s response at stage 2 was confusing as it stated that the lifts were under warranty and that there would be no charge to the resident. On 1 June 2022, the resident questioned this as he was being charged for lift repairs and maintenance. This can be seen on viewing the service charge statements. The landlord needed to fully explain why there was a charge for lift repairs and maintenance but failed to do so. The resident was also concerned about the reasonableness of the charge for the lift which he advised was frequently out of service and he felt that this may indicate an underlying issue. The resident reported that the landlord had served a Section 20 notice in respect of the lift indicating this. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this Section 20 notice and it is not referenced in the landlord’s repairs records for the lift repairs. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to draw a conclusion with regard to a notice being served. However, the landlord, in forming its response needed to fully check the position in respect of the lift. This again indicates issues with internal communication and the landlord’s record keeping and is therefore a failing.
  9. The landlord’s communication was on the whole inadequate as it failed to update the resident within a reasonable timeframe in responses to his ongoing queries, with the exception of its responses made in August 2021. It admitted that there were errors in its service charges and it had provided inaccurate information. There was unreasonable delay in dealing with the issues raised from April 2021 onwards. These issues combined amount to maladministration.
  10. The Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, which is published on our website, sets out our service’s approach when seeking to resolve a dispute. The guidance suggests compensation from £100 to £600 is appropriate for instances of maladministration by the landlord. Maladministration can include a landlord’s failure to comply with its own policies and procedures, unreasonable delays in dealing with a matter, and behaving unfairly, unreasonably or incompetently. In this instance, an amount of £400 compensation is appropriate comprising £150 for the delays in responding to the resident’s queries, £150 in respect of the management of the resident’s service charge account and £100 in respect of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety within the building and a request for a route map to getting an EWS1.

  1. The resident raised issues concerning fire safety as part of his stage 2 escalation request of 15 March 2022. He advised of a delay in the landlord completing fire safety concerns that resulted in the fire service serving a formal enforcement notice. It is notable that issues referred to in the notice of 12 March 2021 were also detailed in the landlord’s fire risk assessment of 19 June 2020. According to the landlord’s fire risk assessment some of these issues were high priority. The landlord’s records indicate that it completed works as a result of the enforcement notice including work to the AOVs, the removal of timber panels, painting black fire resistant paint and repairing damaged fire doors by 20 August 2021 which was outside of its repairs policy timescales and therefore delayed. One of these works orders related to the door closers which had originally been raised on 24 September 2020. This had been held back for Section 20 consultations due to the value of the works and this would have caused some delay. However, the Ombudsman has not seen a Section 20 notice related to this work. The resident refers to a Section 20 notice in his email of 6 October 2021 relating to fire safety works so it is evident that one was served. Whilst his would cause delay, it would not be expected to be delayed by almost a year, particularly when this relates to fire safety.
  2. The Ombudsman requested any fire risk assessments from 2020 and the landlord provided its fire risk assessment of 19 June 2020. This identified a medium risk of moderate harm in the event of a fire. It detailed the areas of high risk and it advised of the need for an EWS1 form external fire wall review to be provided. It also recommended a revised fire risk assessment be carried out a year later in 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no record that this was updated and it is notable that the fire service has since served a further enforcement notice in 2023. This states that the landlord has failed to update its fire risk assessment for the building. This is therefore a significant failing as the landlord should have responded properly to the original enforcement notice.
  3. The landlord’s repair records indicate that one of the works orders relating to its fire risk assessment was raised on 8 December 2021. This was detailed as completed on 10 January 2022. This was nearly a year and half later. The landlord’s repair records indicate that there were outstanding works in 2021 that related to the 2017 fire risk assessment. This was another significant failing as it indicates that the landlord was not taking sufficient and timely action, in line with its repairs policy and fire safety policy in relation to its previous fire risk assessment.
  4. However, since this time the landlord has been taking action in relation to fire safety in line with the requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022. It has since provided a webpage to update residents within the block with the initial update being made on 9 March 2022. This detailed an investigation had been completed and an intrusive survey had been commissioned and completed by the developer. It also advised that a final report would be provided and confirmation of what remediation work that would be required would be reported to residents. This would then lead to an EWS rating for leaseholders. In one of the landlord’s updates, it advised that it was to pilot digital tags on the communal fire doors. These tags would provide the landlord with data to help maintain the doors more efficiently. This was a positive step to take so that it could manage the fire risk potential fire spread more effectively. The digital tags were to be installed on 13 October 2022. The landlord also confirmed, in line with the Building Safety Act 2022, that leaseholders would not be required to pay for historical safety defects. It clarified the position with regard to EWS1 forms and mortgage lending which was one of the remedies sought by the resident. The evidence details that works commenced in October 2023.
  5. The evidence indicates that the landlord’s approach to fire safety has not been sufficiently robust and not in line with its fire safety policy, its repairs policy or regulations. The recent fire service enforcement notice for the building not only indicates a lack of fire risk assessments, but it also raised other issues concerning fire safety for the building. However, the landlord has subsequently acted reasonably by undertaking fire safety works in conjunction with the developer and has set up a webpage giving updates on this work as mentioned above.
  6. As referenced in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management, “Dame Judith Hackitt’s report following the Grenfell tragedy specifically recommended the introduction  of a ‘golden thread’ – both the information that allows a landlord to understand a building and the steps needed to keep both the building and people safe, now and in the future – as a tool to manage buildings”. The landlord should therefore review its approach to fire safety ensuring that its policy is reviewed. It should incorporate a timeframe to indicate how often fire risk assessments should be reviewed within its updated fire safety policy.
  7. There was evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety. In line with the remedies guidance, as above, in this case compensation of £500 is appropriate, for the failings identified including the delays in actioning fire safety works, and the delay in answering the resident’s queries regarding his fire safety concerns. This amount includes £400 in respect of the failings identified and £100 in respect of the delay in responding to the resident’s queries.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation

  1. The landlord’s email to the resident of 25 August 2021 indicates that it was responding in relation to a service charge dispute from 6 April 2021. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on requesting information that residents can raise disputes on service charges, via the complaints team. As such it would reasonably be expected that the resident’s earlier email should have been dealt with through the landlord’s complaints process. It should have therefore adhered to the timescales set out within its complaints policy but failed to do this.
  2. The follow up emails of 25 August 2021 indicated the issue was unresolved as the resident expressed dissatisfaction further querying the landlord’s response. The landlord did not raise a stage one complaint however until the Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 28 October 2021. This was therefore a failing as there was unreasonable delay in logging a formal complaint. As mentioned above, the landlord also advised the resident to raise issues with another team when it could have liaised internally, to provide a full response to the resident’s queries.
  3. The landlord dealt with the resident’s formal complaint issues in 2 parts. The first response at stage one was dated 17 November 2021 and related to an issue raised by the resident regarding his key fob for the door entry system. The landlord advised the Ombudsman that a second stage one response was to be issued in respect of the resident’s service charge queries. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident of this so that the resident did not feel that this part of his complaint was being ignored. It failed to do this which was not appropriate. The second stage one response was not issued until 15 December 2021. There was therefore an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s complaint handling at stage one.
  4. The resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 20 December 2021. The landlord sent an initial acknowledgement on 21 December 2021 which was reasonable. However, it failed to respond again until the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2022. It then sent a further stage 2 acknowledgement to the resident on 15 March 2022. This was unreasonable and evidenced that the landlord primarily responded to the resident’s complaints as a result of the Ombudsman’s intervention.
  5. It was appropriate, however, for the landlord arrange to phone the resident on 6 April 2022 to get a fuller understanding of the complaint issues being raised. This would be of assistance to the landlord in providing a full response.
  6. In the stage 2 response of 1 June 2022, the landlord provided its explanation in response to the resident’s service charge queries. It also provided its service charges spreadsheet with its comments in answer to the resident’s comments. However, it did not respond to the issue raised regarding the key fob for the door entry system which the resident would have been expecting given the acknowledgement suggested that this would be investigated. This was not appropriate under the circumstances. It was important for the landlord to ensure that all of the complaint issues were addressed in its response.
  7. The landlord acknowledged the unreasonable delays in its complaint handling which it attributed to an increased level of complaints and increased staff turnover.
  8. The landlord’s complaints policy is non-compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Code which is a statutory requirement. The Code is published on our website and sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations of landlords’ complaint handling practices. It has a notably shorter timescale for a response at stage 2 of 15 working days. In any event, the responses at both stages were unreasonably managed and delayed.
  9. There was therefore maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord awarded £100 compensation in respect of the delays only. This does not, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, provide a suitable remedy taking into account the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing a resolution to his complaint over the period from initially 6 April 2021 to 1 June 2022, over one year later.
  10. In line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, as above, In this instance, an amount of £400 compensation is appropriate comprising £200 for the delays in complaint handling, and £200 in respect of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in pursuing the matter.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning disputed service charges relating to the door entry system, communal repairs, fire safety works and lift repairs and maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, for the reasons stated above, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning the level and reasonableness of service charges is determined as outside of jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety within the building and a request for a route map to getting an EWS1
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint and the resident’s request for compensation.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Issue a written apology to the resident from a director level or higher, for the failings identified in this investigation, for example, in its communication, record keeping, the errors in its service charges, delays in addressing fire safety concerns and complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £400 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning disputed service charges relating to the door entry system, communal repairs, fire safety works and lift repairs and maintenance.
    3. Pay the resident £500 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding fire safety within the building and a request for a route map to getting an EWS1.
    4. Pay the resident £400 (including the £100 previously awarded) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  2. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to, if it has not already done so, provide a response to each of the resident’s service charge queries. It should outline how it will ensure future service charges accurately reflect the services provided. It should provide a copy of this response to this Service within a further 2 weeks.
  3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to, if it has not already done so, provide a response to the resident with regard to his request for a route map to obtain an EWS1. It should provide a copy of this response to this Service within a further 2 weeks.
  4. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to undertake a senior management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities. It must produce an improvement plan, that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s governing body and Residents’ Panel outlining as a minimum its:
    1. Commitment and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
    2. Commitment and a timescale to review the fire risk assessment previously undertaken in 2020.
    3. Commitment and a timescale to review its fire risk safety policy.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the terms of future lease agreements to ensure that percentage cost breakdowns are accurately set out.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy once the Housing Ombudsman’s revised Code is published on 1 April 2024. It should undertake a self-assessment of its complaints policy (using our self-assessment toolkit available on our website) to inform its review. It should publish its revised policy within 12 weeks of the publication of the revised Code.