Raven Housing Trust Limited (202116683)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116683

Raven Housing Trust Limited

11 January 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Leaks into the living room and back bedroom causing damp.
2. The standard of cleaning and maintenance of the communal area.
3. Being charged for maintenance works for storm damage.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 2-bedroom flat.
The lease states the landlord should keep in good condition and repair the main structure of the property including all roofs and every part of the property above the level of the top floor ceiling. It should also manage the property for the purpose of keeping the property in a condition similar to its present state and condition.
It further states that the lease holder must pay the landlord an annual sum representing the due proportion of the reasonably estimated amount required by the landlord to cover the costs and expenses incurred or to be incurred by the landlord in carrying out its obligations or functions under the lease.

Summary of events

On 30 December 2020, the resident reported that on 24 December 2020 the plastic cladding above and around his kitchen window was hit by something and had been damaged. He was concerned that this would enable water to leak into the roof and loft space. He also reported that water was leaking into his back bedroom and living room despite repairs to the roof in or around July 2020.
The landlord responded on 4 January 2021 confirming it had raised a job with its repairs team. It said the resident would receive a text message when the appointment had been scheduled.
The resident chased the repair on 10 January 2021. In respect of the leak in the living room he said that this issue dated back to 2018 when it was supposed to be repaired. He was concerned as the leaks were damaging the walls, ceilings, and wallpaper. The landlord acknowledged his email the next day and said that it had passed it on to its repairs team. The resident chased the matter up again on 1 February 2021.
On 2 February 2021, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint in respect of the landlord’s response to the reports of leaks and its failure to complete the repairs.
On 2 March 2021, the landlord visited the resident to inspect and discuss the resident’s complaint. It investigated the loft area above the lounge, and concluded it showed no signs of water penetration. It removed the facia and soffit on the gable wall which was also dry and in a good state of repair. The conclusion of the mould growth around parts of the perimeter of the lounge ceiling was therefore condensation. In respect of the bedroom leak it completed a roof repair and the cladding was also replaced.
It also confirmed that the resident had raised other matters which were not part of the complaint while it had visited which it agreed to raise with the relevant team. These were queries about the invoices for water treatment in the communal loft, he wanted a breakdown of cleaning charges, the quality of the cleaning was not satisfactory, and he reported a dumped washing basket in the rear communal garden.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. It enclosed photos of the loft area and behind the facia to show there were no signs of any water markings. It also attached advice on how the resident could manage and prevent condensation in the lounge.
In respect of the leak into the bedroom it acknowledged that it had delayed raising and completing the works. When the repair was reported there was already an open job for a roof repair, it incorrectly assumed that this was the same repair. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience. It advised that damage and redecoration was covered under its building insurance, and it offered to cover the £100 excess required on the policy. It provided details of the grounds for appeal should the resident remain dissatisfied.
In April 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said that it believed the roof leak had been resolved but if it had not then it suggested that the resident advise what repair issues were still outstanding. It enclosed a further copy of its complaint response and asked the resident to confirm which ground he wished to appeal on.
On 2 May 2021, the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s failure to respond to his emails, telephone calls and complaints. On 4 May 2021, the landlord contacted the resident it said. It was sorry that emails had not been responded to. It had addressed this with the individuals concerned. It upheld the complaint that its communication had been below normal standard. It asked the resident to explain what remained unanswered and what actions remained outstanding. It also asked for further information about what work he was unhappy with.
On 13 May 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone. It confirmed that the outstanding issues were:
1. The resident had not had any follow up in respect of the issues he raised when the landlord visited on 2 March 2021. The landlord provided a copy of the email follow up response sent to the resident following the visit on 3 March 2021.
2. The resident had not had a response to his email in October 2020 where he had requested information about various charges. The landlord enclosed a copy of its response sent in October 2020.
3. The resident was unhappy with the standard of the communal cleaning and was waiting for evidence requested related to invoices of the water tanks checks. It apologised that it had not followed up the cleaning issue at the time he raised it. It had asked its cleaning manager to contact the resident to discuss the cleaning.
4. It upheld that its communication on some occasions had not met its response standards and it apologised. It asked the resident to advise whether he required anything more or where he felt the information was incorrect.
On 19 May 2021, the cleaning manager visited the resident, and the resident showed him the cleaning issues.
On 27 May 2021, the resident said that he would not pay for the cleaning charges for the past 2 years. He said the cleaning manager had agreed that the cleaning did not meet the required standard when he visited. He also said he had not been supplied with evidence that the water treatment had been completed.
The landlord responded the next day and advised that it had spoken to its estate manager who advised that while the area had been cleaned, he thought that improvements could be made to the standard. The landlord visited again with the cleaning manager on 26 May. It was organising a deep clean and would then ensure that the area was monitored weekly for a period of at least 4 weeks. It was looking into the records to see where cleaning had been brought to its attention either by the resident or others. It would respond to this, and the water treatment invoices once it had the relevant information. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint remained open under formal stage as discussed.
On 14 June 2021, the landlord sent the resident a report that was done for water testing. It had looked at the cleaning charges and could offer a reduction of £70 from the charges for the years 2019 to date. This reduction reflected that the cleaning team were attending and that on inspection recently it had noted improvements. The resident responded on 27 June 2021. He said he was dissatisfied with the response. The cleaning had not been completed and advised that grass had been left all over his car again.
The resident responded on 15 June 2021. He said he had not seen anyone going into the communal loft to complete water treatments for 2 years. The poor standard of cleaning had been reported to 3 different members of staff. He had supplied video evidence and no action had been taken. He had also reported and provided photographs of grass cuttings splattered on his car.
The landlord responded on 22 June 2021. It said it had 3 years of legionella testing reports, but the files were too large to send. It invited the resident to make an appointment to view these if he wished. The grass splatter on the car was not in his original complaint however it offered to cover the cost of a car wash. The condition of the cleaning had been raised and a reduction in charges offered. It was continuing to monitor the standard of cleaning.
On 30 June, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was putting together its final reply which it would send by 6 July 2021.
On 6 July 2021, the landlord responded it said that it had reviewed its complaint response and it felt that it had addressed all the points raised. It had offered to clean his car as a gesture of goodwill despite this not being in the original complaint. It had offered a reduction in the charge for the cleaning but did not consider there was sufficient evidence to offer 2 years refund. It would continue to monitor the cleaning. It set out its grounds for appeal and confirmed that the amount of compensation did not form a ground for appeal.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord contacted the resident. It said in respect of grass on the car it apologised. It explained that the service was a cut and leave service only. This means that the risk to grass blowing onto cars or into flats is possible. It still offered to pay for the clean of the car and would arrange an inspection of the ground’s maintenance.
It considered the cleaning was of a good standard and in accordance with what the resident was being charged. It proposed to finally close the complaint and agree to the sum of £225.98 being waivered and it would arrange for a meeting with the cleaning manager so that it could explain what would be cleaned. It would not change the specification of the cleaning and would not agree to any further reductions in the charges.
On 2 October 2021, the resident raised a complaint about annual additional charges that the landlord had requested. He considered that two of the charges claimed were damages caused by the weather and should have been claimed off of the building’s insurance. The third charge for filling a hole and fixing the fascia seemed to be high for a job that took less than an hour.
The resident was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of responses to his complaints and issues raised. He was also unhappy that he was still waiting for a call from the cleaning manager regarding the issues with the cleaning in the communal areas.
On 20 October, the resident contacted this Service as he had not had any response from his landlord. We contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf and asked it to provide a complaint response.
The landlord responded to the resident on 21 December 2021. It said that the building insurance external repairs had an excess charge of £5000 per claim. The costs were therefore chargeable under the excess. It provided a copy of the invoice for the works of filling the hole and fixing the fascia. It said that the cleaning team are instructed to cobweb, wash or hoover floors and stairs and wipe down ledges. On 5 January 2022, the resident sent a copy of this response to the Ombudsman.
On 4 February 2022, the resident contacted this Service, and we wrote to the landlord on the resident’s behalf advising that we had not received evidence that a written response to the stage 1 formal complaint had been provided to the resident. The landlord responded and provided copies of its communication with the resident.
On 14 February 2022, this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. We clarified the resident’s outstanding complaints and asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaints under its complaint procedure.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord contacted the resident. It said:
1. In respect of the water ingress in the back bedroom and living room it had repaired and responded to these issues in March 2021. It had considerable correspondence with the resident, but the resident had not advised or reported that there were outstanding works or that he was not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint. It said it had inspected the roof again that week and had refixed some flashing that was affected by the storm. It asked for clarification of what the resident considered was still outstanding and what resolution he required. It said that it had offered the resident £100 for the delay.
2. It was not clear on what charges the resident was disputing in respect of the storm damage, but a dispute had been logged with its homeownership team. The team had already advised the resident in respect of the insurance excess. It broke down the two elements of the building insurance. One is specifically for the resident’s property and the internal elements of the building with an excess of £100. The other is for the block, communal areas, and surrounding areas of the estate. It did not cover the internal dwellings. The excess in respect of this is £5000. It understood that the resident was also disputing the roof works charged. It had photographs and reports of the works carried out by its contractor and was satisfied that this amount was due.
3. In respect of the way in which the landlord had handled the resident’s enquiries. It had apologised for the delay in responding to some of his emails. It was satisfied that it had addressed the areas of the complaints within its correspondence with the resident.
4. It had sent a formal complaint response on 11 March 2021 and since then it had sent numerous emails including a final response dated 21 July 2021 to the queries raised since the final response.
The resident contacted our Service to advise that he remained dissatisfied as he was still getting mould patches over his living room and bedroom due to water ingress. He also remained dissatisfied with the communal cleaning as he did not consider that this was being completed properly. He wanted further investigation into the damp and mould and for the cleaning to be done properly. He also remained dissatisfied that when the grass was cut it went all over his car.

Assessment and findings

Leaks into the living room and back bedroom causing damp.

The landlord’s repair policy states it has 3 categories of repairs. Emergency repairs which will be responded to within 24 hours. Routine repairs which will be completed within 28 days and planned works within 1 year.
This service acknowledges that the resident states the leak issues date back to 2018. It also acknowledges that the resident believes that the historic repairs were inadequate which is why the leaks kept returning and how frustrating this would have been.
However, it would have been reasonable for the resident to have raised his concerns sooner so that the issues could have been investigated by the landlord while they were “live.” Given the passage of time, and the impact this would have on obtaining appropriate evidence. This service has decided that it will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks from December 2020. This is because it was this report and the landlord’s response that led to the complaint being raised.
The records show that the leak was reported on 30 December 2020. The landlord confirmed a job had been raised on 4 January but did not provide any timescales or further information.
The resident chased the matter up several times before raising a complaint on 2 February 2021. The landlord then attended to complete the works on 2 March 2021 which was 62 days after the initial report. This response time was unreasonable, not in accordance with the landlord’s policy, and therefore a failing. The resident had to spend time and effort chasing the repair and had to raise a complaint before action was taken to complete the repair. This would have been distressing for the resident given the concerns that he had already raised about the damage the leak was causing to the walls and ceilings.
The landlord did acknowledge some of its failings within its complaint response. It offered to pay the £100 insurance excess to enable the resident to claim for the damage to his walls and ceilings which was appropriate. It had concluded that condensation was the main cause of the damp and provided photographs of its inspection and advice on how the resident could manage this moving forward which was reasonable.
It stated in its correspondence in March 2022 that there had been no reports of further issues with leaks after it had completed the repairs in March 2021. As a result of the resident raising the issues again it completed a further inspection of the roof and refixed some flashing. The landlord also stated in March 2022 that it had offered the resident an additional £100 for the original delay in its response to the repairs. It is unknown which repair this relates to or when it was offered.
In summary this Service considers that £100 compensation for the delays does not fully reflect the impact that the landlord’s failings have had on the resident. The landlord failed to recognise Its lack of communication as well as the delays. This then caused the resident time, effort, uncertainty, and inconvenience. The resident had to chase the matter and raise a formal complaint before the landlord attended. Furthermore, the delays in completing the repair meant that the resident was unable to claim on the insurance at the earliest point.

The standard of cleaning and maintenance of the communal area.

In respect of maintenance of the communal area in particular the grass cutting the landlord provided a reasonable explanation of the service that was being supplied and paid for by the resident (a cut and leave service). It also went further by offering to reimburse the resident for the cost to clean his car which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident first expressed some dissatisfaction with the standard of cleaning in October 2020 and the landlord did respond but did not agree to inspect the cleaning at that point. The resident then raised the issue again when the landlord visited the resident in March 2021.
It is unclear whether the landlord responded. In May 2021 however the landlord apologised that it had not provided a full response to the resident in respect of the standard of cleaning and the charges. Its cleaning manager then visited the resident and inspected the cleaning. Based on the inspection the landlord agreed that some standards could be improved. It arranged a deep clean which was appropriate, and it agreed to monitor the cleaning for a period of at least 4 weeks. It also agreed to reduce the annual service charge by £70 over a period of 3 years. The landlord based this reduction on the fact that although standards could be improved the cleaning had been continuous and it had not received any other complaints in respect of the cleaning. This explanation was reasonable in the circumstances and showed that the landlord was trying to resolve the issues and improve the standard of cleaning.
In July 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the cleaning was of a good standard and in accordance with what the resident was being charged. It agreed to waive the sum of £225.98 from the cleaning charges for the relevant periods. It also said its cleaning manager would contact the resident to explain what would be cleaned. Although it is unknown how the landlord calculated the reduction in the cleaning charges it was reasonable in the circumstances to offer a reduction as a way to resolve the matter. Particularly where it had acknowledged that improvements could be made to the cleaning.
However, the landlord did not consider the fact that its communication had been poor, and it had failed to respond to the resident when he raised concerns about the cleaning in March 2021. Although the delay itself was not of a long duration, the resident still had to chase the matter and waited 2 months for the landlord to act. The time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident has been considered in the order below.
Furthermore, this Service considers that the landlord should write to the resident to confirm its cleaning schedule and how it monitors this to ensure clarity moving forwards. An order has also been made in respect of this below.

Being charged for maintenance works for storm damage.

The landlord’s policy on rents and service charges states that it will try to ensure that the service charge is broadly in line with the costs. It charges a fixed service charge, but this may be increased at any time if the landlord provides one months’ notice in writing. But not more than once a year unless there is a change in the services provided.
The Ombudsman will investigate service charge complaints where they concern the landlord’s administration and management of the service charge account, and/or where it would be disproportionate to refer the resident to the property tribunal. The Ombudsman has not investigated whether the service charges were reasonable. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect, they can seek advice from specialist advice organisation the Leasehold Advisory Service or from a solicitor.
The landlord’s explanation that it had charged for the insurance excess in respect of the damage by the storm was reasonable and in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the lease. The landlord also provided the resident a copy of the invoice in respect of the roof works which was appropriate. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the evidence provided by its contractors that the works charged were due and appropriate.

The handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will try to resolve a complaint quickly within five working days under its ‘get on track’ process. A resident can raise a formal complaint if a complaint has not been resolved satisfactorily. The landlord aims to provide a written response within 15 days of receiving the complaint. If dissatisfied the resident can on specific grounds appeal to a panel. It is acknowledged that the landlord has since updated its complaints policy and that the new policy is now in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
Despite this Service writing to the landlord in October 2021, and twice in February 2022, the landlord failed to clearly show that it had logged and responded to the resident’s complaints formally. It provided copies of correspondence where it had responded to some of the maters the resident had raised dating back to March 2021. It was confusing and unclear however as to which correspondence formed the formal complaint response. The landlord advised this Service that it had responded formally in March 2021 and then after escalation in July 2021. It also referred to correspondence with the resident in between the complaint which it considered formed part of its formal response.
This fragmented informal response was confusing, and not in line with either the landlord’s complaint policy at that time or this Service’s Complaint Handling Code. Its handling of the matter protracted the complaints process.
The responses were not compliant with the Code, it did not advise the resident which stage of the complaint it was responding to. It did not make clear how the resident could escalate all of the issues that were raised. Therefore, the resident was unable to establish what if any of the matters had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This was a failing in its handling of the complaint.
Furthermore, when this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf in February 2022. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to open a new complaint as advised by this Service as new issues had been raised and 6 months had passed since the landlord said it had provided its final response. It is noted that the landlord did respond to the issues we raised on the resident’s behalf but informally and not as requested in accordance with its complaint policy.
While the landlord provided responses, the landlord’s overall complaint handling failures led to a lengthy, frustrating, and unsatisfactory experience for the resident. Because of this, the resident was required to correspond with both the landlord and the Ombudsman over a protracted period, delaying the resident’s route of redress.
There has therefore been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. This Service provided a clear explanation of the resident’s dissatisfaction, which provided an earlier opportunity for the landlord to raise a new complaint given the passage of time. In addition, the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures at any point in its correspondence. By not acknowledging what went wrong, it missed an opportunity to put things right. In view of this, the landlord should offer compensation to the resident as detailed below. This Service has considered the landlord’s failings and the length of time between the resident’s attempts to raise and exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the living room and back bedroom causing damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of cleaning and maintenance of the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of being charged for maintenance works for storm damage.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in completing the repairs in respect of the leaks and offered £100. This Service considers that this amount does not reflect the impact on the resident. The resident had to chase the repairs, raise a complaint, and continue to live with the damp and uncertainty of when the landlord would complete the repairs for over 2 months. This was unreasonable.
The landlord could have responded earlier to the resident’s concerns about the cleaning. The resident had to chase the matter and waited 2 months for the landlord to respond and investigate the issues raised which was unreasonable and amounted to a service failure.
The landlord’s explanation in respect of the charges related to storm damage was reasonable. The landlord provided the resident the relevant evidence showing the reason for the charges and invoices showing works completed. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s complaint handling fell below its own standard and that of the Code. The responses caused confusion for both the resident and this Service in trying to establish which complaints had been formally considered and the outcome of each complaint. This protracted the complaint process unnecessary and caused the resident further time effort and inconvenience in having to pursue the matter both with his landlord and this Service.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Deduct the sum £225.98 from the resident’s service charges if it has not already done so.
3. Pay the resident £900 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £100 already offered to the resident by the landlord for the repair delays if it has not already done so.
  2. £350 for the impact caused to the resident by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks into the living room and back bedroom causing damp.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of cleaning and maintenance for the communal area.
  4. £400 for the stress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the associated complaint.
The landlord to write to the resident and confirm its cleaning schedule. A copy should be sent to this Service also within 28 days. The letter should include confirmation of:
1. How often it cleans the communal area.
2. What cleaning it will complete.
3. How it monitors the standard of the cleaning.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its handling of the resident’s complaints and identify points of learning on how it can improve its complaint handling. The findings should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
2. Conduct training with its complaint handling staff, with a particular focus on:
  1. The importance of responding to complaints in a formal manner and in accordance with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  2. The importance of defining the complaint definition at the acknowledgement stage and the outcomes the resident is seeking.
  3. The importance of conducting a complaint investigation and acting independently and having an open mind.
  4. The importance of addressing all points raised in the complaint. Where new matters are raised during the complaint process how it considers and communicates what action it will take in respect of these. This would be whether these can be considered as part of the original complaint or whether a new stage 1 complaint is more appropriate.
  5. Confirmation that the above training has been completed should be shared with the Ombudsman also within 8 weeks.