Southwark Council (202104866)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202104866

Southwark Council

17 May 2022

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the residents’ reports of an electrical fault in the property;
2. the residents’ reports of mould growth in the bathroom;
3. its decision to place the residents on a register for potentially aggressive customers;
4. the residents’ concerns about estate service charges.

Background and summary of events

Background

The residents are joint secure tenants whose tenancy began on 15 April 2019. The tenancy agreement shows that the property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a local authority.
One of the residents has advised the landlord that she is registered disabled and suffers from anxiety with depression.
The tenancy agreement shows that, at the point of signing the tenancy, the residents were liable to pay £5.78 per week for estate cleaning charges and £1.26 per week for ground maintenance charges.
The landlord and residents completed a tenancy sign-up document on 10 April 2019 that recorded that they had discussed estate information and upkeep of communal areas.
The landlord has a tenant handbook that shows that:
1. residents are required to allow access to its officers and contractors to conduct inspections and repairs but the landlord will provide at least 24 hours’ notice unless there is an emergency
2. the residents’ weekly rental charge is made up of elements that include service charges for estate cleaning and grounds maintenance
3. residents should not ‘threaten’ the landlord’s officers and contractors
4. the landlord is responsible for maintaining all shared estate areas by duties such as clearing leaves and cleaning stairs and lifts
5. the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and outside of the property.
The landlord has a repairs guide that shows that:
1. it will make appointments with residents if it needs access to their property
2. it is responsible for maintaining installations that bring electricity into the property
3. it completes repairs in either 24 hours (emergency), three working days (urgent) or 20 working days (non-urgent) depending on the priority
4. it classes electrical faults and damp as non-urgent repairs.
The landlord has a ‘potentially violent or aggressive customer procedure’ that shows that:
1. the landlord has the policy to ensure the health, safety and welfare at work of their employees and that ‘threatening physical harm’ and ‘verbal abuse and threats’ from residents would be examples of potentially violent and aggressive behaviour
2. when an incident occurs, the staff member or contractor should complete a health and safety incident form, their manager completes an investigation form and both forms are passed to the housing tenancy manager to determine if the resident is added to the warning flag register
3. if the tenancy manager determines it is warranted, a warning flag is added to the landlord’s housing system which is also shared with its repairs and maintenance contractors
4. residents ‘have the right to appeal against their warning alert status where they disagree with the decision’ and the appeal will be considered by an ‘independent manager’
5. warning flags are reviewed 12 months after inclusion when they will either be removed or reinstated for a further 12 months.
The landlord has a complaints policy that shows that it has a two-stage procedure where it is required to respond within 15 working days (at stage one) and 25 working days (at stage two) respectively. It shows that it will not consider matters through the complaints process if they are subject to legal proceedings or there is a statutory recourse.
The landlord’s complaints policy shows that it can award compensation where it is responsible for maladministration; it has related compensation tariffs that allow it to make payments for delay and distress caused.
There are aspects of the complaint brought to this Service by the residents that were not within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. This Service wrote to the residents on 26 July 2021 accordingly, advising that allegations of discrimination, misconduct in public office, breach of human rights and defamation would not be within jurisdiction and would be best pursued through a legal recourse.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 21 February 2020 due to a report that the electrical fuse board was buzzing. The job was recorded as complete on the same date – the contractor’s notes show that it tightened up connections within a consumer unit and left it in working order.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 27 October 2020 due to a report that the electrics were cutting out periodically due to a problem with the motherboard. The job was recorded as complete on 29 October 2020 – the contractor’s notes show that it ‘tightened neutrals’ within a fuse board and recommended the intake cupboard be checked if there were further problems.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 28 October 2020 due to a report that the bathroom extractor fan was no longer removing moisture. The job was recorded as complete on 23 November 2020.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it raised a recall for the October 2020 electrical job on 20 November 2020. The job was recorded as complete on 23 November 2020 – the contractor’s notes show that it suggested sub-contractors check the intake cupboard and that the residents had advised that this had been a problem since they moved in.
The landlord’s repair records show that an order was raised on 30 November 2020 to check an electrical intake cupboard due to the problem at the residents’ property. The job was recorded as complete on 3 December 2020.
The landlord’s repairs resolution officer sent a complaint acknowledgement to the residents on 30 November 2020, advising them to contact him if needs be.
The landlord’s internal records from 7 December 2020 show that:
1. its repairs resolution team contacted its engineering team just after midday to pass on a report from the residents that operatives had left site after being asked to wait
2. the engineering team passed this report to the contractor about an hour later
3. the contractor replied in the afternoon, explaining that the residents had been rude during the first attempted visit that day and been confronted with a knife by the male resident during a second attempted visit.
The residents wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2020. They advised that two operatives had attended that day – once in the morning and once in the afternoon. They reported that the operatives were rude and aggressive and had been sent back to the property in the afternoon despite the complaint that they had raised with the landlord after the first visit. The residents explained that they were mid-way through a sofa delivery when the operatives first arrived so they asked them to wait but they left and returned in the afternoon. They added that, in the afternoon, one of the operatives in particular had been belligerent, there was an argument during which he made threatening comments and claimed that the residents went into the property to get a knife which was actually a wooden cooking implement.
The landlord’s repairs resolution officer passed the above report to colleagues in its engineering services department on 8 December 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails show that on 15 December 2020, its engineering services team had obtained comment about the 7 December 2020 incident from its contractor. It noted surprise that the incident had escalated as it did and indicated that it had reviewed a video screenshot that seemed to show the operatives were wearing identification albeit it would wish to review any footage the residents could offer.
The contractor wrote to the landlord on 21 December 2020 – it provided feedback from its operatives about the 7 December 2020 incident. The feedback recorded that operatives did have identification, would have worn masks if they had been allowed to enter the property, left the site in the morning as the residents said they were busy, returned in the afternoon as requested by the office, were subject to being shouted at, saw one of the residents with a silver knife who then went inside the property and came back out with a wooden spoon and that they had again then left the site. It added that it would no longer be willing to send operatives to the property given what had occurred.
The landlord’s internal emails from 21 December 2020 show that the above report was passed to its housing team and there was discussion about completing health and safety incident reports, letting the Police know what had happened and an expectation that there would be further investigation of the incident (with the residents added to its potentially violent and aggressive register in the meantime).
The landlord wrote to the residents on 21 December 2020. It advised that it had added them to its ‘potentially violent and aggressive customer register’. It advised that this ‘acts as a warning for staff and contractors where they may be at risk when visiting residents’ and followed an incident with its contractors on 7 December 2020. It added that this would be reviewed pending an investigation into the incident which the residents would be advised of the outcome for and that they had the right to appeal the decision within the following 28 days.
The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord on 4 January 2021 that there was a crime reference number for the incident the previous month and they understood the Police were due to interview the residents about it.
The landlord noted that it sent a copy of the 21 December 2020 letter to the residents by email on 14 January 2021 after it became aware from speaking to them that they had not received it.
The landlord’s internal records show it considered the December 2020 incident again on 26 January 2021 and noted that the last it heard was that the Police were due to attend the residents’ property and it had conducted no further investigations. Its housing team noted on 27-28 January 2021 that there was a crime reference number (this was later established to be incorrect) but, given there had been no further investigations, it would need to remove the potentially aggressive flag in the next two weeks.
The residents submitted a complaint on 1 February 2021 on the grounds that various departments had been responsible for maladministration against them since they made disrepair claims at their previous address. They specifically highlighted:
1. defamatory comments made about them by its staff members during the legal disrepair claim
2. failure to properly install the electricity motherboard in the property, despite chasers between February-October 2019
3. failure to resolve consistent mould growth to the bathroom, including installation of an ineffective extractor fan in November 2020, which meant there was mould growth all over the bathroom wall and ceiling and the situation had gotten worse so their child was ‘coughing up blood’
4. they were being charged £5.78 and £1.26 for estate cleaning and grounds maintenance but disputed that they were part of an estate and that the landlord cleaned the ground around their property
5. the sending of operatives to their property on 7 December 2020 who came without notice, were obnoxious, were not wearing Covid-19 PPE and refused to leave the property, leading to a confrontation in which they were accused of showing a knife (which was actually a wooden spoon)
6. after the December 2020 incident, they were added to a potentially aggressive and violent register held by the landlord without any investigation despite them advising that CCTV footage was held
7. breach of their human rights, fraud, disability discrimination legislation and racial stereotyping by the landlord.
The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord on 9 February 2021 that it believed that the Police had retained its report about the December 2020 incident but that no further action would be taken.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the residents on 22 February 2021. This related to the residents’ concerns about estate cleaning and ground maintenance and concluded that:
1. the residents’ property was attached to a block for which cleaning was done to the surrounding area
2. the residents would therefore need to continue paying towards the cleaning and grounds maintenance works.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it reviewed the electrical issue complaint on 26 February 2021 and noted that no further action had been taken since the contractors had refused to attend again following the incident in December 2020.
The landlord issued another stage one complaint response to the residents on 26 February 2021 relating to the repairs matters. It apologised for the delay in responding and concluded that:
1. it had arranged for communal electrical contractors to attend twice but access was not provided
2. during the first attempt, the residents were having a sofa delivered so the operatives left site and it asked them to return later in the day
3. the operatives would have worn masks if they had been asked to and if they had got access inside the property
4. the contractors had attended for a second occasion but this led to the incident that the resident had subsequently referred to so an alternative contractor would now be asked to attend for the electrical works
5. delays had been partly caused by the behaviour of the residents
6. it noted that there had been a repairs job in October 2020 that led to a new extractor fan but no other damp issues had been reported so it asked the residents to provide further details
7. the extractor fan fitted had been a standard fan as there was no request or recommendation for a special one.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 1 March 2021 to address a flickering electrical supply at the resident’s property when the communal lift was in operation. The job was recorded as complete on 2 March 2021 – the contractor’s notes show that it checked all terminations and found them in good working order and recommended further investigations of the lift and other cabling.
The landlord issued its final complaint response dated 8 March 2021 – it said this was in response to a complaint review request dated 1 March 2021. It concluded that:
1. it could not investigate comments made as part of court proceedings, perjury or defamation as these were criminal or legal matters
2. the only mould report was a repairs order raised on 28 October 2020 which was addressed on 23 November 2020 when an extractor fan was replaced and no reports had been made since
3. it listed the types of estate works that it undertakes and asked the residents to advise if they believed any of these were not being carried out
4. it apologised that the visit on 7 December 2020 was unannounced but could not decide on what happened during the interaction between the operatives and residents given the versions of events differed so much
5. incident report forms were completed and passed to the tenancy manager who agreed for a ‘flag’ to be added to the residents’ account and wrote to him, advising of the decision and giving appeal rights
6. no appeal request had been received and the flag would be removed in 12 months if there were no further incidents
7. it found no evidence of discrimination or that the warning flag was a prerequisite to eviction or a breach of human rights and it would continue to offer services to the resident regardless of the flag
8. it was still working on the electrical issue and was awaiting further information from UK Power Network following their testing
9. it acknowledged the electrical issue had been ongoing for too long and it would review the case for compensation once repairs were complete.

Summary of Events after landlord complaints process

The landlord’s internal emails show that by 9 March 2021, it planned to arrange a lift service. The residents confirmed to the landlord on the same date that UK Power Network had been in attendance.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 11 March 2021 to provide access to an intake cupboard to allow UK Power Network to conduct a check. The job was recorded as complete on the same day.
The landlord wrote to UK Power Network on 11 March 2021 to request that it withdraw its ‘service head fuses’ to allow for further investigation of the flickering lights at the property. It noted that UK Power Network responded on 18 March 2021 and suggested installing test equipment to monitor incoming supply to the relevant flats.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it noted on 22 March 2021 that letters would be hand delivered on 23 March 2021 to warn residents of possible ‘supply disruption’ on 24 March 2021 when it would meet UK Power Network.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 24 March 2021 to allow access to an intake cupboard and meet UK Power Network. It wrote to the residents on the same date to confirm testing was ongoing and a result would be known shortly after testing equipment was removed on 7 April 2021.
The residents chased a response to their complaint on 7 April 2021; they added that they had evidence that the landlord had racially profiled them and breached data protection legislation. The landlord forwarded a copy of the final complaint response by email on 8 April 2021.
The residents replied to the landlord on 9 April 2021. They said that the complaint investigation was biased and raised concerns that:
1. it had not responded to their original complaint in December 2020 and a Subject Access Request since showed that the repairs complaints department had liaised with the contractors involved, making further derogatory comments about them
2. they did report the mould issue to the chief executive and had to wash off the mould themselves despite the operative seeing it in November 2020 and the extractor fan fitted was basic
3. they had tried to exercise their right to refuse unannounced access by operatives on 7 December 2020 but this had led to the operatives returning in the afternoon and then the incident where they had been accused of aggression
4. the complaint investigation had concluded that they had been ‘aggressive’ even though it advised elsewhere in the response that it could not determine what had happened that day
5. they had two items of video evidence to show that a knife was not brandished by them during the incident of 7 December 2020
6. they did not understand how they could appeal the potentially aggressive flag if the decision-making process was flawed
7. there had been a general refusal by the landlord to complete repairs reported by them since they took it to court.
The landlord advised the residents on 9 April 2021 that the UK Power Network testing seemed to show that the incoming supply was not the cause of their flickering lights so they would shortly shutdown the supply to allow further investigations.
The landlord wrote to the residents on 14 April 2021 – it reiterated their right to escalate the complaint to this Service and denied that it had breached data protection law by sharing information about the 7 December 2020 incident with its contractors.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 22 April 2021 to deliver letters to residents explaining that there would be an electrical shutdown on 28 April 2021. Another order was raised for replacement of incoming electrical line wires on 28 April 2021. The contractor’s records show that the electrical supply was tested with only the residents’ property and the lift connected and the flickering was still noticed. It was recommended that the residents contact their provider to get their meter replaced.
The landlord’s internal emails show that by 7 May 2021, it had decided that the residents’ energy meter should be replaced as part of an ‘elimination process’, following discussion with UK Power Network and the utility provider. It noted that the residents were suffering with intermittent ‘blips’ to their lighting and power circuits. There were further discussions on 26 May 2021 that show that the landlord was considering replacing the residual current device (RCD) at the property, after already having tested the incoming supply to the block, checked ‘sub-main terminals’, swapped the supply to the lift, inspected the lift install cables and checked for voltage fluctuations with UK Power Network.
The landlord wrote to the residents on 11 May 2021 to suggest they arrange for the meter to be replaced; it chased the residents on this on 25 May 2021 but the residents advised the landlord had installed the meter. The landlord responded on 26 May 2021, advising that it was not responsible for installing meters so the residents would need to liaise with their utility provider.
The landlord’s repairs records show that an order was raised on 26 May 2021 to attend with the utility provider to renew the meter. The job was recorded as complete on the same date.
The landlord’s internal emails show that the residents reported on 27 May 2021 that the electrical fault remained even after the meter was replaced the day before. It noted that it would now check the circuit configuration for the property and consider running a new temporary cable and replacing the RCD. The landlord subsequently organised an appointment for 2 June 2021 for attendance with a representative from the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting.
The landlord’s records show that, on 3 June 2021, it reviewed a void property installation certificate that was completed in January 2019 – this showed that the electrical installation was ‘in good condition’ with no safety issued identified.
The landlord’s repairs records show that it noted ‘trigger for damp letter’ on 28 June 2021.
The residents chased the landlord for progress on 7 July 2021, advising the flickering had, if anything, worsened since the visit in June 2021. They added that the bathroom damp issue was still a problem and they had to clean black mould away.
The residents approached this Service in July 2021, complaining that the landlord had not dealt with housing disrepair and acted unfairly by placing them on a potentially aggressive list without due process.

Assessment and findings

Electrical fault

The landlord raised an initial repair order in February 2020 which it said was due to a report that the fuse board was buzzing. This Service has seen no evidence of reports made of an electrical fault prior to this and a void electrical inspection report from January 2019 showed that the electrics were safe and in ‘good condition’. There is therefore no evidence of a failing on the part of the landlord in maintaining safe electrics prior to the February 2020 report.
The landlord’s records show that it attended the residents’ property on the same date the repairs order was raised in February 2020. Given the landlord’s records indicated the electrics were buzzing, it was appropriate that it attended within 24 hours in accordance with the timescale for emergency repairs that its repairs guide requires. Its notes show that it left the fuse board in working order and there was no further electrical repairs report until October 2020 – it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to assume that its February 2020 repair had resolved the matter.
The residents next reported the issue on 27 October 2020 and the landlord responded by attending within two working days, conducting another repair and suggesting further investigations if the problem persisted. These actions were reasonable and show that the landlord handled the electrical issue as an ‘urgent’ repair.
The residents reported the fault again during November 2020 when the landlord noted that they had informed it that the problem had been ongoing since they had moved in. The landlord’s repairs records show that it checked an electrical intake cupboard in early December 2020 – this was consistent with the recommendation that had been made in October 2020 and was reasonable given it needed to diagnose the cause of the electrical fault.
During these further investigations, there was an incident between the electrical contractors and the residents on 7 December 2020. This led the contractor to advise in late December 2020 that it would not return to the property. The landlord did not progress its investigations into the electrical fault between then and March 2021 when it arranged for a different contractor to attend – this was unreasonable and meant that there was an unnecessary delay of around three months.
The landlord’s repairs complaints team was already involved with the electrical concerns by this point (having written to the residents at least as early as 30 November 2020) but it failed to progress the repair or respond to the complaint until the end of February 2021. This meant that it did not act in accordance with its complaints policy and the residents had to chase progress on 1 February 2021 – this was inappropriate.
When the landlord reviewed the residents’ complaint at the final stage of its complaints process in March 2021, it agreed that they had experienced the electrical fault for too long and it apologised for this. It also promised to consider the case for compensation once the issue had been rectified. Based on the evidence provided to this Service, a compensation review has not been completed by the landlord – this was unreasonable given it was already aware of its service failings and of the impact these had on the residents.
After the complaint exhausted its complaints process and it engaged new contractors from March 2021, the landlord carried out the following actions over the following three months:
1. liaised with UK Power Network (from March 2021) and the relevant utility provider (from May 2021)
2. checked all terminations and considered how the lift could be impacting the residents’ electrics in March 2021
3. tested and monitored the incoming voltage levels from March-April 2021
4. tested the incoming supply to the residents’ property in late April 2021 while the supply to other households was shutdown
5. assisted with the replacement of the residents’ electricity meter in late May 2021
6. attended with the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting at the beginning of June 2021.

Although the residents experienced inconvenience in that the electricity supply was subject to ‘blips’ during this time, the landlord’s actions demonstrated that it was working on a diagnosis and there was no straightforward repair available to it – there was therefore no service failure on its part during this period.

It is of concern though that when the residents brought the complaint to this Service in July 2021, the flickering electrics continued to be a problem. This indicates that the investigations conducted by the landlord had failed to establish why the electric supply continued to be inconsistent – a recommendation is therefore made below in this regard.
In summary, there is no evidence that the landlord left the residents with unsafe electrics or that there was any delay in it responding to their reports up to October 2020. There was an unnecessary delay in it progressing its investigations into the problem between December 2020 and March 2021 albeit the actions it took from March-June 2021 demonstrated that it undertook appropriate diagnosis attempts.

Bathroom mould

The landlord logged an initial bathroom mould repair report on 28 October 2020, noting that the extractor fan was no longer working. It attended the residents’ property on 23 November 2020 and replaced the fan. The landlord therefore demonstrated that it acted appropriately and in accordance with its repairs guide by completing the repair within 20 working days.
The landlord has advised the residents that it received no further mould growth concerns from them, and therefore completed no other repairs, since then. However, the residents made clear in their complaint letter of 1 February 2021 that the mould continued to be a problem and advised that they believed there were serious health implications to members of their household as a result. The landlord’s repairs department responded to the complaint on 26 February 2021 and asked for further details of when the residents claimed to have had repairs reports ignored but failed to raise a new repair order in light of the report within the complaint. It was inappropriate that the landlord failed to recognise that it should attend the residents’ property again given the report they made on 1 February 2021 and the health concerns they raised.
When the residents wrote to the landlord on 9 April 2021, they advised that they had cleared the mould in the bathroom themselves given the lack of response from the landlord. They also raised concern that the recently installed extractor fan was insufficient and mould was already present again to the bathroom ceiling. There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action until it noted issuing a ‘damp letter’ on 28 June 2021. This was inappropriate as the landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered the residents’ concern that additional ventilation measures were required to prevent continuous mould growth – this meant that it did not act in accordance with its repairs guide which shows it will deal with damp within 20 working days.
In summary, the landlord initially responded appropriately to the residents’ bathroom mould report by installing a new extractor fan in November 2020. However, it failed to take any meaningful action in response to their reports in February and April 2021 that the mould had returned and the extractor fan was insufficient.

Potentially aggressive flag

It is not disputed that there was an incident between the residents and two operatives from the landlord’s electrical contractors on 7 December 2020 and that this led to the landlord adding a warning flag to its housing records to show that the residents were ‘potentially violent and aggressive’.
The landlord’s contractor and the residents both informed the landlord’s repairs resolution officer of their feedback about the incident on the date it occurred. The repairs resolution officer made a colleague in engineering services aware of this on 8 December 2020. This action was reasonable given the landlord’s engineering services department was managing the contractors in regard to the repair they had been in attendance for.
The incident feedback was also passed to the landlord’s housing department on 21 December 2020. Given the housing tenancy manager is responsible for assessing whether a potentially aggressive flag is appropriate and the accounts from the residents and contractor concurred that a member of the household had retrieved an item from the property, was irate and threatened the operatives, it was reasonable that the information was passed on.
However, the relevant procedure sets out that the member of staff involved in such an incident should complete a health and safety form and that their manager should complete an investigation form so that these can be passed to the housing manager for a decision on the warning flag. Although there was subsequently some internal discussion about the need to complete a health and safety form, there is no evidence that either of the two forms were completed and passed to the housing team either before or after the warning flag decision was made. The landlord therefore failed to act in accordance with its procedures in this regard.
The landlord added the warning flag and informed the residents of this decision on 21 December 2020. It told the residents that this was pending a review following an investigation into the incident but did not follow up on this until late January 2021 when its housing team attempted to obtain the outcome of any investigations by its engineering services team and contractor. It became apparent at this point that no such investigation had been undertaken. This was unreasonable as the landlord had informed the resident that its warning flag decision was subject to an investigation but this did not happen and, although it noted that it may need to remove the warning flag as a result, it is not clear that it followed up on this.
When the residents submitted their complaint on 1 February 2021, they set out why they were dissatisfied with the warning flag decision. The landlord should have used this dissatisfaction as an opportunity to log an appeal against the warning flag decision in line with its procedure but it failed to do so. This was unreasonable, particularly given the residents had informed it that they were willing to provide video evidence of the incident. This meant that the landlord lost the opportunity for an ‘independent manager’ to review its warning flag decision.
In summary, the landlord did not carry out an investigation prior to adding a ‘potentially violent or aggressive customer’ warning flag to its system as its procedures require and its letter to the residents said would happen. It also failed to consider the residents’ written dissatisfaction with the warning flag decision (and offer to provide further evidence) as an appeal.

Estate service charges

The residents initially disputed paying charges for estate services such as cleaning and grounds maintenance in their complaint of 1 February 2021. This concern was on the basis that the residents considered that they were not part of an estate and the landlord did not clean the area outside their front door.
When the landlord’s housing department responded to this complaint on 22 February 2021, it advised what the residents’ estate was and explained that it was responsible for maintenance of the block that the property was attached to. Although the residents’ property is not accessible through a communal front door, the landlord advised that it is part of an estate and the residents are therefore liable to contribute towards cleaning and grounds maintenance. The landlord acted reasonably in responding to the residents’ estate services charge concerns by promptly advising them why the property attracted such charges.
The residents’ tenancy agreement shows that there were estate service charges from the beginning of the tenancy and the related tenancy sign-up documents show that the landlord advised them (in advance of the tenancy commencing) about estate services. This indicates that the advice given by the landlord in February 2021 was consistent with the information it had offered at the point of the residents’ tenancy commencing.
The landlord reviewed this matter at the final stage of the complaints process. It provided additional information from the tenant handbook about the kinds of services the disputed charges were for and signposted the residents as to how they could make reports if they believed that these services were not being delivered. This was reasonable advice on the part of the landlord to demonstrate that it was willing to consider any concerns the residents may have about the quality of estate services.
In summary, the landlord gave appropriate advice to the residents when they raised concerns with it in February 2021 about having to pay estate service charges.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the residents’ reports of an electrical fault in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the residents’ reports of mould growth in the bathroom;
2. its decision to place the residents on a register for potentially aggressive customers.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the residents’ concerns about estate service charges.

Reasons

The landlord delayed between December 2020 and March 2021 in its investigations into the residents’ reports of an electrical fault at the property.
The landlord failed to respond to the residents’ bathroom mould reports in February and April 2021.
The landlord did not follow its ‘potentially violent or aggressive customer procedure’ before and after it added a warning flag to the residents’ records.
The landlord appropriately considered the residents’ concerns about their responsibility to pay estate service charges.

Orders

The landlord to write to the residents to:
1. apologise for the service failures identified in this report;
2. offer to inspect their bathroom to consider the mould growth and extractor fan concerns and identify if any further repairs are needed;
3. confirm if, and when, the ‘potentially violent or aggressive customer’ warning flag was removed and if it has not been removed, it should explain why and offer rights to appeal the decision.
The landlord to pay the residents compensation of £475, made up of:
1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to them by the service failure in its handling of their reports of an electrical fault in the property;
2. £175 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to them by the maladministration in its handling of their reports of mould growth in the bathroom;
3. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to them by the maladministration in its handling of its decision to place the residents on a register for potentially aggressive customers.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to write to the residents to:
1. update them on the outcome of any investigations since July 2021 into the electrical fault;
2. if the problem remains unresolved, advise them of its action plan to diagnose and remedy the fault.
The landlord to ensure relevant staff are aware of the requirement within its ‘potentially violent or aggressive customer procedure’ to complete incident and investigation forms and pass these to the tenancy manager so a determination can be made on the need for a warning flag.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.