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

Slough Borough Council (202007248)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007248

Slough Borough Council

30 April 2021


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:

a)     The maintenance and the repair of communal area doors.

b)     The standard of cleaning in communal areas and the building’s caretaker not reporting fly-tipping or repairs to the landlord.

c)     The level of service charges.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. The resident has said that he is looking to take legal action against the landlord to recover some of the service charges and compensation for the decrease in value of his property due to the maintenance issues. As previously advised by this Service in December 2020, these are matters better assessed by the courts. Under paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent.
  3. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to make enquiries of the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) for information in that regard.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat in a building with similar properties. In line with the terms of the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the property’s structure and communal areas. It will then re-charge residents for communal and exterior repairs through service charges. The landlord also instructs a caretaking and cleaning service to attend the property, which the residents pay for via service charges.
  2. On 25 March 2019, the landlord raised repairs for the shed and main entry doors. An operative attended on the same day, but it does not appear that a repair was completed. Then, on 6 and 9 April 2019 the landlord raised several repairs to the communal area, including to: repair the door to the garden and secure a gate to the communal area, test the ceiling in the communal area for asbestos and repair a broken window in the communal area.
  3. The landlord replied to a previous complaint made by the resident in February 2019 on 23 April 2019. It said that it was working to ensure the caretakers, refuse collectors, and fly-tipping removers were all working together, and it would install CCTV by 26 April 2019 to help identify any fly tippers. The landlord said that it would inspect the current communal door fob system and broken shed locks/fobs.
  4. On 25 April 2019, the resident suggested that his housing officer let him know when she visited, so he could show her the problems outstanding, such as: missing ceiling panels, issues with bins, the door to communal garden slamming shut, and the broken window.
  5. The resident pursued updates from the landlord on the communal door repairs through May and June 2019, explaining that non-residents were accessing, loitering, and littering the communal areas. On 5 June 2019 the landlord’s repair logs state that the repair to the gate and padlock were completed, but repairs were required to one of the doors. On 16 June 2019 it was reported that a non-resident, who possessed a firearm had accessed the building through the broken communal doors.
  6. On 18 June 2019, the resident asked who he should contact to escalate his complaint. He confirmed that there were at least three doors that needed repair, including to the front and back of the building, and this resulted in non-residents entering and being antisocial.  The landlord replied that it needed some time to investigate the issues and it would visit the following day to inspect the doors.
  7. Following the landlord’s visit, between 19 and 20 June 2019 the landlord and resident liaised regarding repairs identified, including to: the main door to the shed area, garden, and drying area; the loft to the shed area; and the gate to side of the building. The landlord confirmed that the CCTV had since been moved and a general letter would go out to all tenants to remind them that there was no access at any time to the communal loft area, including the roof area on top of the shed. Finally, the landlord said it would see if it was possible to complete any improvement works including an enclosure for the bins.
  8. The landlord’s repair logs say that it attended on 20 June 2019 to repair the door entry system/all main door closures, but follow-on works were required. The landlord informed the resident on 27 June 2019 that the door needed replacement, and, in July 2019, confirmed it would be undertaking a full review of all communal doors.
  9. In August 2019, the resident expressed his concern with the delays in the repairs to the doors to the communal gardens and to the sheds. He asked for an update on the repairs to the shed ceiling, whether anybody was caught fly-tipping with the CCTV and whether the ceiling tiles in the communal areas of the building were made from asbestos.
  10. The resident continued to pursue an update on the doors in September 2019, and the landlord confirmed that the communal doors needed to be renewed but quotations for this needed approval.
  11. A repair was raised on 25 September 2019 to inspect and repair the shed ceiling. The operative who attended noted that the main shed door was vandalised/falling apart, and the shed ceiling panels appeared to have been broken to store items in the ceiling. However, the operative noted that an asbestos check would be required before the shed ceiling repair could be completed.
  12. The resident reiterated the outstanding repairs on 2 October 2019 and the landlord updated the resident on 22 October 2019 that, while the CCTV was present, it did not capture any fly tipping, and it was arranging to repair the shed ceiling, rotary lines and replace the communal door. Furthermore, the landlord explained that it was aware that the communal door was secured before, but if this was damaged again and “drug peddlers” were congregating in communal areas, it would raise another repair. It advised that it would update the resident by 23 October 2019.
  13. On 22 October 2019, the resident told the landlord that the communal door to the side of the building had been broken for nearly two months and, in September 2019, a contractor had been unable to repair it and said it needed to be replaced. The resident said the other two communal doors were still damaged, including the one leading to the back communal garden and the shed.
  14. The resident asked for an update on 2 November 2019. The landlord advised on 8 November 2019 that it was awaiting the result of the asbestos check from 6 November 2019, which would usually take around three days, before repairing the communal area ceiling tiles. The landlord informed the resident on 15 November 2019 that it was awaiting approval of the quotes for replacing the rear garden door and to repair/replace the side entrance door, and the repair for the shed door was booked for 5 December 2019. Finally, the landlord said it was still waiting for confirmation on whether the ceiling in the shed contained asbestos, and that the rotary lines were booked to be renewed on 30 November 2019.
  15. On 2 December 2019, the resident reported that a mattress, which he had seen needles around previously, had been outside of the property for two months. He also asked to complain on 5 and 6 December 2019, that neither the shed door nor communal doors were fixed, and he wished to contact this Service. The resident requested an update on the mattress on 17 December 2019 and the landlord subsequently forwarded this to its environmental health department.
  16. The landlord replied on 9 December 2019 that all works were approved, and it was waiting for a date to undertake them. It said it would respond to the stage one complaint within ten working days.
  17. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, of 20 December 2019, it explained that the request made in June 2019 for the replacement of the doors was not actioned correctly and therefore caused a further delay. The landlord advised that it was reviewing business practises to mitigate any further reoccurrence and the doors would be fitted at the end of January or beginning of February 2020. Finally, the landlord confirmed that the repair to the shed door was booked for 31 December 2019.
  18. On 21 December 2019, the resident asked to escalate his complaint due to delays and poor communication regarding the door repairs. He explained that the rotary lines had not been replaced, he had not received an update on whether there was asbestos in the building’s communal area ceiling, and the rear gate had open access and any non-resident could walk into the communal areas and enter the building. The resident also reported a new issue with two doors, which led to empty-looking garages on the estate being used by “drug addicts”.
  19. The landlord confirmed on 2 January 2020 that it had escalated the complaint and would respond within ten working days. 
  20. The landlord sent the resident a stage two complaint response on 17 January 2020. It said that the delay to the front and rear doors being replaced was due to it waiting for the contractor to provide a quote with details of the work. It reiterated that it was awaiting the delivery of the doors, which were scheduled to be fitted in late January or early February 2020. 
  21. The landlord explained that the parts for the rotary lines were not available for the previous date given, though it had booked for these to be replaced on 30 January 2020. The landlord also provided the last asbestos report from the survey carried out on the 28 March 2019, which identified that the ceiling in the building’s communal area contained low risk asbestos cement panels. The landlord confirmed that it would also inspect the gate and investigate securing this with a lock and then supply keys to residents.
  22. It is not clear from the repair records on what date the shed and rear entrance doors were replaced, but the repair records suggest that the landlord attended on 3 February 2020. It is also unclear whether the rotary lines were replaced on 30 January 2020, as the landlord said they would be.
  23. On 10 February 2020, the resident reported that, since the shed door and rear entrance doors were replaced, residents were unable to access these doors with their keys. He explained that he had been unable to access his shed for nearly two weeks and, if someone was in the back garden, they would be unable to get back in. The resident subsequently asked to escalate his complaint on 13 February 2020. He added that the repairs were still outstanding to the side entrance door and broken ceilings tiles. Additionally, the mattress was still present outside and rubbish in the bin area was still spilling over.
  24. In an internal email by the landlord, on 16 February 2020, it said that the front and rear doors had been replaced and it was awaiting a fitting date for the side door, which was previously secure.
  25. The complaints panel met on 3 March 2020. It found that the complaints procedure was unclear on who would lead on communication with the resident and what was considered a complaint; that there were unacceptable delays in completing repairs; and caretaking/cleaning was not being done regularly and caretakers were not reporting concerns or issues that they found when they visited blocks. The panel recommended that the landlord:

a)     Complete a report on the contractor’s role in the complaint.

b)     Provide information to help residents understand how the complaints procedure worked.

c)     Consider future options for the safety and security of the building and offer the residents panel a place on the customer experience sub-group to monitor these issues.

d)     Provide the resident board with a written plan and timescales for completing the works on this block and regular verbal updates thereafter.

e)     Present a report to the resident board on the caretaking service and what it was doing to address poor performance.

  1. It was not made clear that the minutes from the stage three complaints panel was the landlord’s final complaints response, until this Service contacted the landlord.
  2. On 6 March 2020 the landlord informed the resident that it had raised several repairs, including to: the fob systems to the bin store, common door, communal garden, and two other communal doors; and low-level fencing close to the bin area. It said that it would also remove any dumped mattresses from communal and confirmed that it was investigating the group of people causing ASB in the block alongside other agencies.
  3. Following the above, there continued to be ongoing issues with the maintenance of the block, ASB, and broken doors. This was demonstrated in contact from resident and the police to the landlord.

Assessment and findings

  1. According to the landlord’s website, it will either complete non-emergency repairs within 3 or 20 working days, depending on priority. The website also further confirms that it is responsible for communal and external areas, footpaths, estate paths across grounds, gates and fencing to alleyways and drying areas, door entry systems and rotary lines or driers in communal areas. It is not clear what the agreement is for the shed repairs in this case, as this would usually be a resident’s responsibility, but there appears to be multiple sheds which are allocated to residents. Nonetheless, the landlord accepted responsibility for the shed repairs.
  2. On occasions there will be circumstances where a repair may not be able to be completed by the designated timeframe. This is usually where the repairs are complex, and further investigation is required. In such cases, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the resident, explain the reasons for the delay, provide new timeframes for the repair, and keep them updated. In this case, after inspecting the doors, in June and July 2019 the landlord confirmed that at least one of the communal doors needed replacing and it would undertake a full review of all communal doors. However, the front and rear doors were not replaced until around February 2020, and the side door was still not replaced at the time of the landlord’s final complaint response in March 2020.
  3. While there is evidence of the landlord attending the property on several occasions, it is unclear whether this was to attempt to undertake temporary repairs to the doors while they were pending replacement. It is also not clear why, nor reasonable for, the landlord to delay in replacing the doors for several months, especially considering the security concerns that the resident continuously raised.
  4. There were also unreasonable delays in the landlord completing several repairs to the communal areas, including to replace the rotary lines, carry out improvements to the bin store, and to secure the communal gate. Furthermore, it is not clear if the landlord identified whether the shed ceiling contained asbestos to enable it to fix the missing tile. Additionally, the landlord delayed in following up on its request for the removal of the fly tipped mattress, which the resident reported to have been present for months in the communal area, despite regular visits by the landlord’s staff. Finally, on several occasions the landlord did not keep the resident updated, with the resident needing to ask for updates throughout the course of his complaint. An example of this is in relation to whether the communal ceiling contained asbestos, with the landlord only providing the resident a copy of the report in March 2020, when it gave him a time frame of three days in early November 2019. This is not in line with good practice and was a service failure on the landlord’s part.
  5. The landlord has acknowledged that there were unreasonable delays in completing repairs and that the caretaking and cleaning services needed improvement, as they were not being completed regularly and caretakers were not reporting concerns or issues that they found when they visited. The complaints panel recommended that the landlord “consider future options for this site to make it safe and secure to live in”, provide the resident board with a written plan and timescales for completing the works on the block and regular verbal updates thereafter, and the landlord to present a report to the resident board in the caretaking service and what it was doing to address poor performance.
  6. However, the landlord did not provide the resident with a formal stage three response after the complaints panel meeting. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have sent the resident this, including timescales for any outstanding repairs, and any specific actions needed to address the poor performance by the caretaking and cleaning services. Given the identified service failures, it would have also been in line with good practice and this Service’s remedies guidance for the landlord to have offered compensation in line with its compensation policy to put matters right, and acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failures.
  7. Finally, the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure, which allows for three stages. At stage one and two it will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and respond within ten working days. At stage three of the process, the resident can ask for their complaint to be reviewed by the complaints panel. The landlord will acknowledge stage three complaints within two working days and respond within ten working days; however, if more time is required due to availability, this will be negotiated and agreed with the complainant.
  8. It is evident that the landlord failed to log and escalate the resident’s complaint on several occasions, despite his requests. When it did do so, the landlord delayed in providing a formal response and provided two stage one responses. The stage three panel acknowledged the issues with the landlord communicating its complaints procedure and confirmed that it would provide residents with further information on this. The landlord has confirmed that its final complaint response was the minutes from the stage three panel meeting; however, as previously mentioned, no formal response following the panel meeting was issued.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the maintenance and the repair of communal area doors.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint about the standard of cleaning and the property’s caretaker not reporting fly-tipping or repairs to the landlord.

Reasons

  1. The landlord unreasonably delayed in completing repairs in the communal area, including to the doors, and it is also not clear whether the landlord has completed all repairs that it agreed to. The landlord has acknowledged its failure to complete repairs in a timely manner; provide a reasonable caretaking service, which the residents pay a service failure for; adhere to and communicate its complaints procedure; and keep the resident updated. However, the landlord has not provided reasonable redress for the distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced in pursuing the matters, nor has it given a clear final response detailing the measurable actions it will take moving forward.

Orders

  1. In light of the findings of the investigation, the landlord is ordered to (within four weeks of the date of this report):

a)     Pay the resident £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its service failures. This is comprised of:

  1. £175 for its handling of maintenance and repair of communal area doors
  2. £175 for its handling of the complaint about the standard of cleaning and the property’s caretaker.