Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202126432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126432

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

31 October 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 response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. The lack of a designated parking space.
2. The lack of suitable recycle bins at the property.
3. Issues with the communal entrance system.
4. The lack of access to the managing agent’s portal system.
The report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background.

The resident is a shared owner of a first floor flat and the lease commenced on 9 September 2020.
The landlord holds the head lease on nine flats in the property block, including that of the resident but it is not the freeholder. The freeholder has instructed its own management agent to look after the property.
The landlord is aware that the resident is a carer for her son who requires special care and that she has been recovering from recent brain surgery. However it has confirmed to this Service that it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises two stages. It states at stage one that it will aim to reach a resolution within five working days. If the complaint is escalated to stage two, it will aim to resolve all second stage complaints within seven working days. If the landlord is unable to meet these timescales, it will let the resident know setting out the reason for the delay and the intended time by which it will respond.
The landlord’s guidelines for compensation and goodwill payments explains that the landlord will make a goodwill payment which ranges from £50 upwards to £250 dependent on the degree involved if a customer has a poor experience but “has suffered no quantifiable loss or expense”. Examples given for this include where:
1. The landlord has failed to keep a promise.
2. The resident has had a really poor experience because of the landlord’s mistakes.
3. The landlord wants to recognise the unnecessary time and effort a resident has had to make to get their issue resolved.
The resident was provided with a welcome booklet from the freeholder which contained important and useful information to allow her to look after her home. The booklet explained that, in terms of defects, the home was covered by a warranty by the contractor for the first 12 months. The freeholder explained in relation to any problems that these needed to be reported in the first instance to the landlord by email, using its website or by phone. It added that it would “only bear responsibility for issues which are due to defects in building materials, workmanship or design.”
The welcome booklet explained in terms of recycling and waste that there were black communal bins in the bin store for non-recycling. In addition there were coloured bins for recycling which included cardboard and paper, plastics, glass, tins, cartons, foil and for food waste a smaller brown kitchen caddy had been provided to the resident which needed to be emptied to the outdoor recycling bins. If the resident did not have a caddy or needed a replacement they were advised to contact the council and full contact details for the council were provided in the booklet.

Summary of Events.

The resident contacted the landlord on 18 November 2020. This was to inform it that she was facing lost income as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The resident explained that she wanted to defer some of the rent until she was earning again. The resident also raised security concerns with the communal main front door which she explained had been broken for four weeks. She added that the lock needed to be changed and that, as she cared for a special needs child, they were vulnerable due to the issue. In addition the resident also explained she had not received any paperwork from the landlord nor had she been given “digital access to the system”.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 November 2020. She raised a query over the service charge as well as the rent she had been charged. She was advised to raise this with her solicitor. The resident also confirmed that the front door which she had contacted the landlord about the previous week had been fixed by the residents so the security aspect had been resolved.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 January 2021. She explained she had been diagnosed with a brain tumour and was awaiting surgery. She had learnt that the property was subject to a section 106 agreement and that it was a car free development. Given her vulnerability and caring responsibilities, which involved a long distance to her child’s school, she stated she needed her car.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 February 2021. It explained that it was looking at options, including allowing the resident to park on site.
The landlord’s internal notes on 28 May 2021 noted the resident had contacted it as she was unable to open one of her windows. The landlord’s notes also stated it was still looking to provide an update over the parking space. The landlord notes indicated it would send the resident a welcome pack.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2021 concerning the parking issue. She explained that she wanted a permanent solution as opposed to the temporary one, which involved parking in another nearby development which she had been using at that time. The landlord asked the resident if she qualified for a blue badge as a potential option in relation to the issue of parking. The resident confirmed that she did not meet the criteria for a blue badge.
The resident continued to communicate with the landlord over the issue of parking over the following weeks and indicated she had emailed her solicitor over the matter. In the meantime she had been parking in another block near to the property. This had been provided to her by the landlord. However on 6 August 2021 the landlord’s internal notes indicate that the resident had been given notice to move the car within 28 days.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 August 2021 concerning a number of issues. These were:
1. The food waste recycling as there was nothing in place for this and the council had informed the resident this was the responsibility of the managing agent to arrange.
2. The right to vote at residential meetings. She explained as she was a shared owner she did not have the right to vote which she felt was discriminatory.
3. The issue of service fees. She explained that these included cleaning internal areas and windows and yet her block had not been included in this according to the managing agent which she felt was discriminatory.
4. The parking issue. She stated she had previously contacted the landlord over the matter and there had been no resolution. She added she had not been informed she was moving into a “no car parking zone”.
The landlord’s internal notes indicated on 6 September 2021 that the resident had been provided with a copy of the lease for her property and it was clear from this that no parking was provided to her.
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 October 2021. She explained that she had received a letter about the car parking (which the landlord has not provided to this Service) and that she was trying to find alternative arrangements for it which had proved difficult given her current circumstances. She added she had been left with “empty promises” from the landlord and she wished to raise a formal complaint. In particular the issues she raised related to:
1. Not having a single point of contact which the landlord had informed her she would receive.
2. The informal agreement between the landlord and the directors of the block to allow her access to the portal system to report maintenance issues which had not materialised.
3. Her raising issues about the Section 20B notice concerning service fees, the communal door entry, recycling, window cleaning and communal area cleaning and discrimination which had not been resolved.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 October 2021 and stated:
1. In relation to her car which had been parked at a nearby block, the “two weeks grace has elapsed” and it asked her to now move the car.
2. In terms of the portal question, the managing agent wanted everything done through the portal however it was unable to give access as the managing agent did not hold the resident’s contact details. It added a workaround had been established where the resident would report issues to the landlord’s customer services area and the customer service team would have details of how to raise the issue with the managing agents. In terms of the portal, the landlord explained that a complaint could not be raised about this as this was not a service provided by it.
3. In terms of the other issues the resident had raised it would raise a complaint about them.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 October 2021. She stated:
1. The main entrance issues had been reported in October 2020 when she had been locked out due to weather issues. The resident explained the managing agent had suggested a new key lock was fitted instead of the faulty entry fob system however this had not yet happened. The resident added that she was the only resident in that side of the block and she had no access to the building via any other entrance. Therefore it was a security and safety issue. She added nothing had been done since she moved in and during the defects period.
2. In terms of the service charge issue, the block had no lift and the communal areas were excluded from the cleaning so she could not understand what the service charges were actually for. The resident also explained she had received a section 20B notice that the landlord was looking into the service charges over the previous 18 months and that she may be required to pay more. This was despite her only being in the property for 12 months.
3. In terms of the recycling, the landlord and the council had both promoted themselves as a clean and green community and yet no effort had been made to provide green recycle bins. She had raised the issue with both the landlord and council on several occasions. She felt that it was the responsibility of the landlord and the directors of the property to deal with the matter.
4. The property had been sold to her by an estate agent acting on behalf of the landlord. It had not advised her at any point in terms of parking issues. She was instead given the impression that she could purchase a resident parking permit. No one had informed her that she was living in a no car parking zone. She added she was even provided a permit initially by the council. As an individual caring for someone on the disability register she would not have purchased the property without the ability to park her own car there. The resident added, whilst she had been given the opportunity to park in bays owned by the landlord in a nearby block, why had nothing else been done.
5. There had been poor customer service provided by the landlord. This had included failed promises and a lack of support from it.
The landlord stated it called the resident on 18 October 2021 to talk over the points she had raised. As it was unable to speak to her it left a message. Following another unanswered call the next day, the landlord emailed the resident on 19 October 2021. It stated:
1. In terms of the communal entrance door it had noted the issues had occurred since October 2020. It started its contractor had attended on safety grounds on 25 August 2021. A recommendation had been made for a locksmith to attend for the issue. However as the landlord did not own the freehold and the directors had instructed a new managing agent to look after the block it had contacted the managing agent about the matter. The agent had instructed the contractor to carry out repairs. The contractor had noted the door entrance system was not reliable and that it would source options and send these to the directors for consideration. It asked if the resident had access to the portal.
2. In relation to the service charges, it had provided a spreadsheet on this matter.
3. It had contacted the council over the issue of the recycle bins. It added it would let the resident know once it had heard back from the council.
4. In terms of the car parking the landlord explained that the bays it had purchased from the freeholder had already been allocated elsewhere. It added that, under the landlord’s head lease, it had explained that it would not be providing parking. Whilst the resident had been parking on another nearby property, someone from there had made a complaint about it. The landlord had then looked at alternative options but been unable to find any given the local restrictions on parking which were in place.
5. In terms of the customer service it acknowledged there had been delays with the resident chasing it up on matters. It asked the resident for more detail on what specifically it had let her down with.
The landlord contacted the managing agent of the block on 19 October 2021. The communication between the parties set out that the cleaning of the windows of the flat were for the leaseholder and not part of the communal cleaning. As the managing agent had taken over from a previous agent, it explained that the budget was in the process of being drafted. The managing agent had commented that the communal door was made overseas and was unreliable and it was sourcing options regarding this. It also confirmed that all updates would be via the portal and access would be granted to the resident (and other leaseholders).
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2021. She stated:
1. She had reported the issues with the door within 6 months so why had it not been replaced under the defects period by the landlord. She asked it to fix the issue especially given her vulnerability.
2. The landlord appeared to be passing the issue of the service charges over to the managing agent. It had a duty of care and there was no transparency being provided by it.
3. In terms of the recycling, the landlord and the council had poor management and a lack of environmental responsibility which was not acceptable. She also pointed out that the council tax was extremely high yet the issue of recycling was not being dealt with by it.
4. She had spoken to her solicitor in terms of the car parking. She accepted that the issue of there being no parking was contained within the documents she had been provided with, however the issue had not been highlighted to her. Therefore she felt that something else could be done and she wanted the landlord to investigate the matter together with the council. She added she understood the landlord owned bays at the nearby property where she was parking so asked why she was not allowed to continue to park there. Whilst she understood someone had complained, they did not own the parking space, so she was unclear on what basis they had made a complaint.
The managing agent emailed the landlord on 22 October 2021 to explain that in order to allow the resident access to the portal the landlord needed to share the resident’s details for registration. This was in response to the landlord asking the managing agent about how the resident could gain portal access.
The landlord sent an email to its data protection officer (DPO) about what the managing agent had said it was required to allow the resident portal access. The landlord also informed the resident of this on 26 October 2021. The resident replied the same day providing her permission for her information to be shared with the new managing agent.
The landlord’s internal notes for 26 October 2021 noted that it was awaiting a response from the managing agent on the issue of the communal door and the portal issue. On the same day the landlord contacted the managing agent to inform it that it would be asking its residents who wished to access the portal to get consent forms signed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 October 2021 enclosing images of waste which she explained would lead to landfill. She asked the landlord to contact the council about the matter. Whilst the resident accepted it could have been as the recycling collection had been missed for that week, which was later confirmed to be the case by the landlord, she felt the issue was unacceptable.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same day as receiving her email. It stated:
1. In relation to the communal door, that it only held the head lease and therefore its responsibility extended to the flats it owned together with the residents of those flats. However the responsibility of the communal door sat with the freeholder and therefore the managing agent to deal with. It added it should not have sent out its own contractor in August 2021 to carry out a temporary fix and that it would not be charging for this within the service charges. It added that it was working with the managing agent on the matter.
2. Concerning the online portal, that this had come online the previous month from the new managing agent. It was liaising with its DPO on the matter.
3. In terms of the service charges, that it would agree to be transparent with the resident once budgets were reviewed and set out. It added that it had not employed the previous managing agent and therefore the ability to challenge the service charges at that time was limited.
4. The relationship with the new managing agent was better than the landlord’s relationship with the prior one.
5. In terms of the recycling, that due to the setup of the new managing agent it may wish to consult with the residents before making a decision on implementing new communal bins. The landlord added that would wait to hear back from the council and then it would liaise with the managing agent.
6. In respect of the car parking, that it had contacted the council on behalf of the resident and explained the situation. However no special allowance had been possible from the council. Whilst it noted the resident’s claim that the issue had not been made clear at the time of the sale, it left it to the resident to contact the council herself over the matter.
The resident emailed the landlord acknowledging the response on 28 October 2021. In terms of the car parking she stated she had been made aware that one of the vehicles that parked in one of the landlord’s spaces did not belong to the property to whom the space had been given. Therefore the resident was unclear as to why that car had been given permission to park there and why those circumstances had been different to hers. She also asked the landlord who she needed to call in respect of the issue of the rubbish.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 29 October 2021 as she disagreed with the landlord’s response to the issue of the communal door. She added that she would be taking legal advice on the matter. She added that the landlord ought to have taken more responsibility over the matter, especially given the lack of other alternative entrances to the block. The resident also wished to deal with the managing agent via the portal and could not understand why the landlord had not been able to use her email authority to share her information with it.
The resident also explained in terms of the car parking that she had been lured into “a false sense of security” as she had been initially given a permit by the council. She added the estate agent had failed to tell her about the matter. She also confirmed that the parking bay which she had reported to the landlord on 28 October 2021 belonged to the landlord as it had its name painted on the floor of that parking space.
The landlord followed up the call to the resident on 29 October 2021 with an email. It explained:
1. It had passed on the pictures of the car in the wrong space to the managing agent who managed the car park. It added that if it was discovered that the space had been allocated to the landlord it would discuss at that time about the appropriate action to take.
2. In relation to the communal door it was awaiting a response from the managing agent.
The landlord informed the resident on 1 November 2021 that it had passed on details of the car which she had queried to the managing agent.
The managing agent explained to the landlord on 2 November 2021 that following the handover to it from the previous managing agent, which had not been on the best terms, it did not have a registered car park plan which showed who owned which parking spaces.
The landlord informed the resident on 3 November 2021 that it had called the council in terms of the recycle bins and the concerns had been forwarded to a manager. The landlord also explained the managing agent had sent engineer proposals to the directors of the block and were waiting its response as well as on the portal issue.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on several of the issues on 11 November 2021. It also enquired as to whether the recycle bin she was requesting was for food waste or for household waste. The resident replied on the same day to say she was disappointed that the landlord’s update had not mentioned the issue of the car parking. In terms of the recycling she added that it was not for household waste but for food waste.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 November 2021 to the DPO with regards to the portal. This had followed a meeting it had with the managing agent for the block. It was confirmed that the managing agent ran the portal. The landlord explained that it wanted to keep a certain level of control so it only wanted to roll out the access to the portal to the shared ownership residents at that time. It noted that the residents would be able to order fobs, see updates for on-going communal repairs as well as reporting new communal repairs. To gain access the managing agent had confirmed that they needed the resident’s email, name, flat number and contact details. It asked the DPO to design a consent form to allow this.
The landlord issued the stage one complaint response to the resident on 12 November 2021. This noted the resident had complained about the following issues:
1. Fault with the main entrance door.
2. Service charges.
3. Section 20B notice.
4. Lack of window cleaning.
5. No green recycling bins.
6. Not being allocated a parking bay together with communications about parking on the street.
7. Level of customer service.
8. The online portal system.
The landlord stated in the stage one response that it could have acted on some of the issues quicker and that it would take some learning away from the matter. In response to the various issues it stated:
1. It did not own the communal areas of the block. These came under the remit of the freeholder and the responsibility for repairs was via its managing agent. This had included the communal door which it accepted should have been fixed at an earlier stage. It stated the managing agent had been changed due to the poor level of service provided by the previous one. It added that in relation to the door the managing agent had been in discussion with the directors of the block with regards to agreeing to a long-term solution. The managing agent had yet to hear back from the directors of the block on the issue, but the landlord would continue to chase it on the issue. The landlord confirmed that it would remove any charges for its contractor visit from 25 August 2021 as this should not have occurred.
2. It had met with the managing agent in terms of allowing access to the portal system. This required the resident to provide a number of details to the managing agent. The landlord was putting together a consent form to allow this to occur. It added it had not seen this issue previously so it was learning from it as it was undertaking the task.
3. In relation to service charges it had previously provided a breakdown to the resident as of 19 October 2021. Following the change of managing agent a full review of the service charges had occurred which had discovered not all of them were correct. The new agent was therefore ensuring the service charges were correct going forwards and this process, whilst being its top priority, was taking some time.
4. It had issued a section 20B notice as it did not have the actual costs to compare to the estimated costs. It added any over or under charge would be issued back to the resident via this process which it expected to be completed that month.
5. The managing agent confirmed that the cleaning of communal windows had not been undertaken previously. Once the new budget was put together by the new managing agent, money would be budgeted towards the issue although it was envisaged this would not occur until the following year.
6. It had no responsibility or authority or control over the type of recycling bins which were provided to the property. This instead rested with the freeholder and the local council. The landlord however had spoken to the council to try to resolve the matter and it was awaiting an update on the matter.
7. In terms of parking, the landlord understood the resident had stated she acted on the information provided to her by the estate agent, who was acting on behalf of it. In addition the resident had stated she had been initially given a parking permit by the council, only to later be informed it was a no parking zone and that it would not renew the permit going forwards. The landlord had tried to find an alternative solution for the resident including contacting the council on her behalf. It had offered a temporary solution to the resident of parking at a nearby block however this was no longer possible due to complaints having been raised to it. It added that the resident may wish to take up the issue directly with the council.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 November 2021 asking for the complaint to be escalated to the second stage of the complaints process. She also pointed out some errors with the stage one response which she wanted the landlord to correct. The landlord issued an amended stage one response on 15 November 2021 making the changes the resident had pointed out.
The landlord issued the stage two complaint response on 18 November 2021. It noted that the resident had accepted the guidance from the landlord over the issues of service charges, the section S20B notice and window cleaning following the stage one response. The resident had requested an escalation for the issues of car parking, the communal front door, the recycling bin and the customer service process. The landlord stated:
1. The car parking issue remained a civil legal matter with the conveyancer as it should have been clarified in terms of her lease. It added it had no influence with the council over any agreement for street parking nor control over highway decisions.
2. In terms of the communal door this had been escalated to the freeholder via the managing agent. It added that the door had been currently working when tested by the managing agent.
3. The access to the portal system had been agreed and the process was being “designed by the data protection officer”.
4. The recycle bins were not owned by the landlord. The decision over collection was the responsibility of the council. Whilst it had tried to liaise on the resident’s behalf, the decision on the issue was one for the council and the freeholder to deal with.
5. In terms of the customer service element it accepted this had left the resident dissatisfied. It added it was looking at the current structure to ensure going forwards that residents felt they were being listened to and that there were no delays. It explained that a lot of the issues the resident had complained about were not services it provided, but it should have given a more detailed explanation earlier and signposted her at the time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 November 2021. She stated she was unhappy about the parking issue as she considered this to be the responsibility of the landlord and not the managing agent. The resident noted the landlord had not addressed the issue of the other car which was parking in a landlord space which she had reported to it. She also questioned the time taken for her to gain access to the portal.
The landlord chased the issue of the portal access with the DPO on 30 November 2021. From the correspondence provided by the landlord the portal access had still not been granted as of 25 May 2022 when it emailed the managing agent the personal details of the residents in the block.
The resident has, since the end of the complaints process, continued to communicate with the landlord over the issue of parking. She had informed it in December 2021 that there was a disability space in the car park which was vacant. She asked if this space could be given to her and she explained she was in receipt of disability living allowance and had recently undergone brain surgery. She had also informed the landlord in January 2022 that she had been parking temporarily in one of the spaces allocated to one of the flats as their car had failed its MOT. She asked the landlord again about other bays it might have held in a nearby block which she could use once the temporary space was no longer available. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 16 March 2022 that it could not issue a parking space to the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

The resident, since completing the landlord’s internal complaints process, has raised further issues including the property having commercial gas pipes. This meant that a home boiler care agreement which she had taken out was not appropriate or valid. This matter will not be addressed as part of this investigation, as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure or been raised with it in the first instance.

The lack of a designated parking space.

The resident has stated the estate agent from whom she had purchased the property in 2020 was acting on behalf of the landlord. In terms of parking she explained this had not been pointed out to her at the time and that there was a responsibility on the estate agent and therefore the landlord to have mentioned the issue, which was important to her at this time.
Whilst the estate agent had been advertising the property, there is no indication that the landlord had been involved directly in any communication with the resident prior to her purchasing it. Neither was there any evidence that the resident had directly asked either it or the estate agent about the issue of parking and whether she had been allocated a specified space prior to the purchase. The landlord has stated that parking was not indicated on the memorandum of sale document given to the resident and her solicitor. It however has not provided a copy of this document. Her shared ownership lease made no mention of a parking space. Following speaking to her solicitor the resident accepted that there was no parking included in the lease.
The landlord has explained that, when it purchased the properties in the block on a leaseholder basis, it had been given three parking spaces in the underground car park by the freeholder. The landlord had purchased a total of nine properties and so the number of spaces given to it did not match the number of properties it purchased. Of the three parking spaces, the landlord has confirmed that it allocated two of the parking spaces on the basis of disability. This left it only one further space which it had offered for an additional fee and which had been purchased by an individual purchasing one of the properties prior to the resident making her purchase.
In terms of the parking permit the resident’s lease set out that “the leaseholder shall observe and perform the provisions of clause 11 of Schedule 4 of the Headlease”. The headlease explained that the resident should not knowingly apply for a parking permit and that if one had been issued that it needed to be surrendered within seven days of a written request by the council.
Following the landlord being made aware of the parking permit which the council had not renewed for the resident, it looked at alternative options for her. This included other spaces held in nearby properties. It was able to offer the resident a space at a nearby block which she was able to use until she was given notice to move her car following a complaint being raised. Whilst the resident has questioned her entitlement to park at that block, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had provided the resident with any commitment or a guarantee for a parking space for a fixed period. Even following the withdrawal of that space it continued to look at other options which included seeing if it was able to purchase any more car parking spaces in the block from the freeholder.
In addition the landlord has explained that it had contacted the council on behalf of the resident in terms of trying to obtain a parking space and/or permit as well as enquiring as to whether the resident could qualify for a blue badge. This went over and above what it was contractually obliged to do under the circumstances. Ultimately the decision to make the area a no parking zone was a planning condition agreed by the council and not the landlord. In terms of providing a parking space in the block, as the landlord had no other spaces available it had contacted the managing agent, who was acting on behalf of the freeholder over the issue. Any decision on whether the resident could be considered for a space would rest with it and not the landlord.
There were some delays in the landlord’s communication with the resident over the issue of the parking. The resident had on occasions needed to chase it up on the matter which gave her the impression the landlord was not following up on it. The landlord’s contemporaneous notes show that on occasion it was waiting on a response on the matter from a third party such as the managing agent or the council. It is clear that the issue of the parking space was important for the resident. It is also recognised that she experienced a degree of frustration over the situation. However overall the landlord did do enough concerning the issue and therefore acted appropriately with regards to the issue of the parking space.

The lack of suitable recycle bins at the property.

The landlord has explained that, as it is not the freeholder of the building, the issue of the recycle bins at the property does not fall directly with it but would come under the remit of the freeholder. As the resident’s contract for the property, the lease, is with the landlord and not the freeholder the Ombudsman would expect to see pro-active and proportionate engagement by the landlord with the freeholder regarding the issue.
The welcome pack given to the resident explained that the property had communal bins which were stored in the basement of the block and that on the day of collection that these would be moved into position on the ground floor by the managing agent. The communal bins included various different types of recycling bins including food recycling.
The resident had initially contacted the landlord about the food recycling in August 2021. It was clear that she had already contacted the council about the matter and it had directed her to the freeholder and the managing agent acting on its behalf. The resident had explained to the landlord at that time that she was aware the managing agent was due to change at that time. Given this and the fact her contractual relationship rested with the landlord it was appropriate for the resident to have approached it at that time rather than attempting to contact the freeholder herself.
Whilst the landlord has provided evidence that it had contacted the council over the matter it has not provided this Service with any indication that it had also attempted to contact the managing agent or the freeholder about the matter.
The welcome pack contained links to the council website in relation to the waste collection service and in terms of requesting waste containers, the website explained that in terms of ordering bins for flats using communal/sharing bins that “managing agents/residents’ associations are responsible for providing any new or replacement communal recycling and waste bins for residents who live in purpose-built flats”. It added that communal waste and recycling bins could not be ordered online but that to do so a resident needed to speak to “your landlord, managing agent, housing officer or residents’ association”. The website also clearly set out that the managing agent needed to purchase them from a private supplier of their choice and that they would not be provided by the council.
The welcome pack had been provided to the resident by the freeholder and not the council. The resident has not stated whether or not she had been provided with a brown caddy for the food waste in the property but even if she had this, as there was not a communal larger bin for the food waste of the block there would have been no facility in place for the food waste to be collected. The responsibility for this rested with the freeholder and once it had purchased the communal container for it to then liaise with the council about the collection of it. However as the landlord had not raised the issue with the managing agent this meant there had been no progress on the issue by the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of issues with the communal door system.

The resident reported the issues with the communal door to the landlord within two months of moving into the property in September 2020. Although she had stated the issue had been initially resolved by her and other residents, the issue had resurfaced again in 2021 and the landlord confirmed that it had sent out a contractor in August 2021 to attempt to resolve it. The landlord has not provided any notes prior to sending out the contractor which show when the resident had raised the issue with the communal door. Although this would be within 12 months of when the resident had moved into the property, the landlord has confirmed to this Service that the defects period for the property had ended as of 22 February 2020 so this would not have been classed as a defect.
As the landlord was not the freeholder of the block it would not have been responsible for the repair to the communal door. Therefore by initially attempting a fix to it following the report by the resident it went above and beyond its responsibility. It should have instead raised the matter with the managing agent acting on behalf of the freeholder.
The landlord has provided evidence of it raising the matter of the communal door with the new managing agent who replaced the previous managing agent. It in turn had raised it with the freeholder. It was awaiting a response from them over how to proceed and the landlord was regularly chasing the managing agent over the matter. However it has not provided any evidence that it had contacted the initial managing agent over the matter. Had it done so, it is unclear what if any action the managing agent would have undertaken and whether the decision of the freeholder over how to proceed would have been different. However the landlord’s failure to liaise with the managing agent at the time the issue had initially been raised has caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience, especially as this was the only entrance to the block. The failure of the door to work meant that the resident’s security was impacted. This was a failing on its part.

The landlord’s handing of the lack of access to the managing agent’s portal system.

The landlord has stated that, having spoken to the new managing agent, it had confirmed that it required all repairs to be reported on its online portal system. This included the ongoing communal door issue which the resident had raised.
The resident had initially raised the issue of the portal access in October 2021, although she had stated in November 2020 that she had yet to be given digital access to the system. It was not clear if this related to the issue of the portal, especially as in 2020 the previous managing agent had been in place. The portal system appears to be a system used by the new managing agent.
Following the resident raising the issue in October 2021 the landlord had contacted the managing agent on a number of occasions to determine what was required for the resident to gain access. The managing agent had informed the landlord that it needed the resident’s authority and this was provided by the resident on the same day it had been requested. In addition to providing the platform on which the resident could report repairs, the portal system was also the place where the managing agent could post updates such as when there was going to be a disruption in services. The resident had contacted the landlord shortly before there had been a disruption scheduled to take place having not received any communication on the issue, as it had been provided on the portal which at the time the resident did not have access to.
Despite the resident providing her authority to share personal information with the managing agent in late October 2021, the landlord stated it had to check with its DPO on the process and this resulted in it needing a consent form to be created. The landlord did not send this to the managing agent for its approval until several months later. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s stage two response of 18 November 2021 in which it had stated that the portal access had been agreed and the process was being designed by the DPO. This wording did not suggest the process would still not be complete for over a further six months from that time.
The evidence provided by the landlord showed there were significant gaps in time, where it seemed no progress was being made on the matter. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to have checked with the DPO on the issue, especially in line with concerns of how personal data could be removed if the resident no longer lived at the block, this did not account for the excessive delays before the access was finally given to the resident.
In terms of the portal access, whilst the managing agent stated that this was a requirement for all ongoing reporting of repairs by the resident, she had no direct relationship with the freeholder. Instead given the relationship was a matter between the resident and the landlord, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have informed the resident that she needed to report all repairs and concerns direct to it, as the party to which the resident had a contract, in the first instance. It would then have been the landlord’s responsibility to pass this information on to the managing agent. Doing this may have allowed the landlord to have dealt with other communal issues which were not its direct responsibility including the recycle bins and the communal door. However as the landlord did not make the resident aware of this approach this caused the resident a degree of inconvenience in having to wait for access before she was able to pursue any communal issues.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident initially raised her complaint on 11 October 2021. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the complaint it did not issue the stage one response until 12 November 2021, some 25 working days later. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy. Whilst the policy did state that there were occasions where the landlord could not provide a response within five working days, and it had continued communicating with the resident over the matter, the landlord did not provide her with an update on how long the matter was likely to take. This delay in providing the stage one response would have caused the resident an element of distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided details of most of its email communication with the resident and the new managing agent, it has not provided clear details of the numerous telephone calls which it had amongst others with the council over the parking and the recycling bins. Whilst the landlord followed up on some of the calls with emails which reinforced the contents of the conversations with the parties, the absence of detailed contemporaneous notes was a concern especially as the landlord stated that there were timescales in place for the response on occasion, which suggested the landlord was expecting the other party to do something.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not always been the case in its management of the resident’s repair request as well as gaining access to the portal system. The landlord should ensure that it makes contemporaneous notes of communication with all parties and that these are clearly recorded on the resident’s file. Whilst this was a failure on the part of the landlord it did not directly impact the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore not made a finding against the landlord in respect of its record keeping in this case but has made a recommendation which the landlord is asked to carefully consider.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the lack of a designated parking space.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the lack of suitable recycle bins at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the issues with the communal door system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the lack of access to the portal system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord had not provided any indication to the resident that the property came with an allocated parking space and this had not been set out in the head lease document as well as the other documents issued to the resident. In addition to this the head lease made it clear that no parking permit would be granted by the council. Whilst the resident’s circumstances did require her to have her own car the landlord tried to assist the resident with locating alternative options for her to continue to park.
Although the landlord communicated with the council on behalf of the resident over the recycle bins, it failed to do likewise with the freeholder or the managing agent. This was not in keeping with the welcome pack issued to the resident.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it kept in contact with the original managing agent over the issues with the communal door to the block. Whilst it was not the freeholder, the resident’s contract was with the landlord so the issues should have been passed from the resident to the landlord and then from the landlord to the managing agent.
The landlord failed to promptly progress the resident’s request for access to the managing agent’s portal system.
The landlord failed to meet the timescales as set out in the complaints policy at stage one.
Although there were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations which took place primarily between the landlord and third parties, the resident was not significantly impacted by this matter.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £250, which comprises:
  1. £50 for its handling of the recycling bins at the property.
  2. £75 for its handling of the issues of the communal door system.
  3. £75 for the delays in its handling of the lack of access to the managing agent’s portal system.
  4. £50 for its failure in its complaints handling.

Recommendation

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).