Stonewater Limited (201903301)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903301

Stonewater Limited

31 December 2020

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 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 resident complains about:

a. The landlord’s response to reports of disrepair regarding the communal door entry system.

b. The landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries regarding her service charge.

c. The landlord’s change to staff contact arrangements with residents during the Covid-19 pandemic.

d. The condition of and work by contractors on the communal areas on the block.

e. The landlord’s complaint-handling.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) and (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The landlord previously dealt with the complaint raised by the resident regarding the alleged assault against her by a contractor in 2017. As part of its complaint response, the landlord offered to the resident £700 compensation which the resident accepted. Though the resident has brought this complaint again to the attention of the landlord which has in turn exercised its discretion in choosing to consider it again and provide a complaint response, following investigation of the issue this complaint has not been considered in this report due to:
1. The length of time that has elapsed since the incident;
2. The lack of evidence regarding the incident;
3. The fact that the landlord has acknowledged and apologised for failings in the process and attempted to put in place a safeguard for similar situations in future with the attendance of its staff;
4. The compensation previously made to the resident in response to the complaint.
On the basis of the above, it would not be possible for the Ombudsman to carry out a proper investigation into the matter, and the compensation paid to the resident would be likely to constitute reasonable redress regardless. For these reasons a determination will not be made on this complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a two bedroom flat and has health vulnerabilities which she has communicated to the landlord.
On 17 December 2018 the landlord’s internal emails noted that residents had been reporting the door entry intercom had not been working for 13 weeks and were seeking compensation.
On 2 January 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the intercom system was still not working.
On 16 January 2019 the landlord noted it had been chasing two outstanding repairs with its contractors for a number of weeks without success. It sought an update on a specific repair order which had been raised on 28 December 2018 to supply, install, rewire and commission a maglock on the main entrance door to replace the missing lock.
On 21 February 2019 a check established that the communal door entry system remained faulty.
Prior to 1 July 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord in which it set out the following:
1. The resident wanted to see accounts and receipts of how the landlord spends the service charge money provided.
2. She was concerned with the quality of cleaning and maintenance on the block, stating that the bushes and weeds in the garden were not being maintained to a proper standard. The communal cleaning in the block and window cleaning had not been done for a period of eight months
3. Fly tipping was occurring on the block, and the resident wished to know what was being done by the landlord to deal with it. She also requested an explanation as to why it had taken so long for the landlord to act in response to a neighbour’s ongoing ASB issues and fly tipping.
4. The intercom had been broken for approximately two years.
5. An operative who had allegedly abused the resident two years prior had been attending the property again. The resident wished to know why this had been allowed and why a formal response had not been provided at the time.
The landlord provided its acknowledgement of the complaint on 1 July 2019. On 12 July 2019 it noted that it would require further time to consider the complaint and would issue its response by 26 July 2019.
On 26 July 2019 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response, setting out their position on the various issues raised by the resident:
1. Residents are sent the information regarding service charges once per year when the accounts are checked. It was enquiring as to whether it could provide the specific breakdowns requested by the resident and was in ongoing discussions with its rent setting team regarding this. It would be in touch in due course with the information if this was possible.
2. In regards to the grounds maintenance, particularly bushes and weeds in the garden not being maintained to a proper standard, the landlord confirmed that staff members had contacted its contractors and confirmed that work was being done to its contractual standard. There was a hedge that needed to be cut outside the resident’s window but it couldn’t be accessed as there were always vehicles in the way as it backs on to the car park. To remedy this, the contractors were due to attend on 1 August 2019 to cut this and it had written to all residents to advise them to keep cars out of the way on this date. There was a patch in the back garden that needed to be turfed and seeded but this couldn’t be done yet as there was “no one to water it”. It had been agreed to address this in the Autumn.
3. In response to the resident’s statement that communal cleaning in the block and window cleaning had not been done for a period of eight months, the landlord stated that it had been in touch with contractors on a weekly basis. It noted that it had been done within the last 8 months because a staff member was managing the way the cleaning was being carried out but noted that the contractors had not been out as often as might be necessary. It was something that the landlord was working on and it hoped the resident would see an improvement in the near future.
4. In regards to fly tipping in the block, it can be reactive to this and clear the rubbish but there is little more it can do. If it does know who does it, it can recharge the individual. If it is not the landlord’s tenant it will take action against the individual. If it is unaware of the perpetrator however then it cannot individually bill them.
5. In regards to allegations of ASB from a particular neighbour, it was unable to advise exactly what action it was taking due to GDPR. It is also subject to court timetables and the decisions of a judge. The court had asked for further information before it would hear the case, and compliance with this order would add further time to the case. It would keep the resident informed as to what was happening as much as it could.
6. In regards to the intercom, it apologised that the issue had not been resolved despite being first reported on 2 January 2019. It had instructed new contractors to inspect and thoroughly investigate the repair. It anticipated to receive an initial report on the issue within 5 working days. It was in the process of exploring other contractors for door entry repairs who would be able to match the service standards expected by residents.
On 6 August 2019 the landlord provided its acknowledgement of an escalation request by the resident, noting that it would aim to respond within ten working days which would be by 20 August 2019. It considered the outstanding issues for the resident to be:
1. The incident with the contractor worker in 2017 was not acknowledged by the landlord or contractor despite the landlord having records of it.
2. A further explanation as to why the intercom is still down.
3. The resident’s requests for all accounts and receipts relating to the money she paid on her service charge.
On 23 August 2019 the landlord wrote to its contractors requesting an update on the door entry repair raised on 18 July 2019. It noted that the resident had raised a complaint that had been escalated for the door entry not being repaired for some time after the orders were raised.
On 29 August 2019 the landlord provided its stage two complaint response, apologising for slightly missing the response deadline. It set out the following:
1. Regarding the alleged incident with the contractor in 2017, the contractors had told the landlord that they held no records about the incident. The landlord had found a record of a call made by the resident on 28 April 2017 that indicated that having had a missed appointment on the previous week and a card being left, the resident saw the same operative and confronted them which led to an argument which continued into the car park. It apologised that no further action had been taken, but noted that the complaint had been investigated formally shortly after the incident occurred and that too much time had now passed for any further constructive investigation to be taken. It noted that at the time the tenancy services officer offered to be present whenever a contractor needed to attend the property, and that this arrangement could continue with her new officer whenever a repair or inspection appointment was made. It apologised that this was all it could offer in respect of the issue.
2. Its records indicated that the current issues with the door intercom system started on 18 July 2019 but also dated well before this. Parts of the system needed re-wiring and the contractor needed to get into other flats for this which delayed completion. The contractor had advised that her system was working from 14 August 2019 and the resident had confirmed this. It apologised for the delay in undertaking the repairs.
3. Regarding her request for all accounts and receipts relating to the money she paid on her service charge, it noted the annual charges are reviewed each year and the accounts produced. When the most up to date accounts had been produced she would be sent a breakdown of the expenditure and the new charges. It was working on the accounts from February 2018 to February 2019 and she would soon receive this. If upon receipt of the accounts she wanted additional information she could contact the landlord for this.
On 31 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that she would be paid a refund for the period of time that the intercom was not working, which it acknowledged as being from 4 January 2019 to 1 April 2020. It also provided an explanation on the proposed service charges, including for the resident’s home alarm system and administration charges. It included a copy of the accounts covering 2019-2020.
On 2 June 2020 the landlord provided its response to the resident regarding:
1. The intercom system, noting that the response set out in the 31 March 2020 regarding a refund to the resident had been actioned.
2. The service charges, to which it noted its response remained the same. It had provided an explanation for the charges and included a copy of the accounts for 2019-2020.
3. Alleged poor work carried out (or not being carried out) by contractors in terms of ground maintenance and communal cleaning, including windows. The landlord noted it had procured and commenced a new contract from 1 April 2019, and that while there were initial bedding-in issues these were managed within the contract and contract meetings. It noted that it had taken a few months for the service to be at the level required by the landlord, and that it had reached this point. It denied that there had been any period when no service was provided.
On 6 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident noting that the service charge refund would be actioned by 10 July 2020. Once the consultation on the service charge concluded in April 2020 some additional work was required and this had contributed to the delay. It apologised for not updating her with the reason for the delay.
On 22 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It set out the following:
1. It apologised that the resident had not experienced great customer service, and that this had been a reoccurrence since the complaint raised in 2018. The promise made to her to provide information requested along with expecting the door entry system to be fixed in a reasonable time and for it to finally happen in 2020 was not acceptable.
2. It had had many conversations with her about how it had failed at times in communicating, and it was working on this and had been making improvements. It noted a particular senior staff member was due to attend MIND workshops to help support its team speaking with customers that suffer from mental health issues with the hope that this learning could be passed on to the entire organisation. This had not gone ahead due to the workshops being cancelled and it was waiting on an update for when they would resume.
3. The resident’s assistance with providing feedback on the block had been invaluable. This had helped its tenancy officers work with the contractors to meet the agreed service standards that had not necessarily been met the previous year.
4. It had reviewed the compensation offer that had been made to the resident and made a new one of £650 in recognition of the failures she had experienced over the last few years. The compensation offer was broken down as:
  1. £275 for the handling of the request for the landlord’s accounts in relation to service charges
  2. £275 for the handling of requests to have the door entry system fixed
  3. £100 for the handling of the complaints
On 25 August 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging a formal complaint regarding the landlord’s lack of consultation and communication over the changes to service delivery.
On 8 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response:
1. The landlord had had to change its processes due to the pandemic and introduce new systems to keep staff, residents and contractors safe. It took proactive steps to call customers in certain risk groups to ensure appropriate support arrangements were in place and introduced daily calls to customers living in retirement living schemes. Throughout its process its customer service team had continued to operate across its normal business hours: 8am to 8pm weekdays and on Saturday mornings.
2. In terms of service delivery it noted that it had:
  1. continued to deliver priority face to face frontline services to residents in its sheltered and supported schemes
  2. maintained cleaning and ground maintenance services, adapting to comply with Government guidelines with a focus on high risk areas
  3. maintained its emergency repairs service and compliance checks during lockdown and had re-introduced a full repairs service ensuring safe working practices were in place
  4. introduced flexible and tailored support to help residents financially affected by the pandemic to manage rent payments
  5. had more than 30,000 proactive conversations with customers covering wellbeing, reassurance and budgeting advice
  6. introduced (from April) a new independent feedback channel to seek feedback from residents.
3. A Customer Experience Manager had taken personal responsibility for ensuring the resident had regular communication with the landlord and that they had worked with the resident previously to address a number of specific concerns that the latter had raised previously.
On 15 September 2020 the landlord increased its offer of compensation for the handling of the resident’s requests the door entry system fixed to £400, bringing the total amount of compensation offered to the resident to £775:
1. £275 for the handling of the service charge information requests
2. £400 for the handling of the requests to have the door entry system fixed
3. £100 for complaint-handling.
On 23 September 2020 the landlord provided its stage two response regarding the changes to contact arrangements. It noted the resident was seeking evidence of how they came to this decision without consulting residents, and that she wanted certain board members to be investigated for not acting in the best interest of residents, as well as seeking the return of the resident’s particular TSO and others. It set out that:
1. The decisions had been made in response to the Covid–19 pandemic. It explained that there would be further work during the following months to shape a more permanent way of working which would involve the landlord consulting with customers. Once it was in a position to propose these permanent changes, it would begin its consultation with residents at which time it would welcome the resident’s views.
2. The stage one response confirmed that it had continued to provide access to all of its services whilst having to adapt the way we deliver these to ensure customers and colleagues are safe. Its Tenancy Services Officers were continuing to deliver services. Though it may have looked different to how it was offered previously, the new way of working was giving all of its customers access to an available Tenancy Services Officer, often more quickly than before. The Tenancy Service Officers were all able to deliver the same levels of service.
On 30 September 2020 a job order was raised to repair the front and rear communal door entry systems. The work went ahead on the same day. The resident however has stated that the intercom system was not properly repaired as this repair related only to one of the broken elements and it was left functioning incorrectly.

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy sets out that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the building’s structure, exterior, fixtures and fittings, heating, hot water, electrical, gas and sanitation installations, kitchen and bathroom suites.
Repair response times are:
1. For repairs that could pose an immediate danger or cause serious damage, the landlord will make sure that a resident’s home is safe and secure within four hours of them reporting it. For other high priority repairs the landlord will make a temporary or permanent repair within 24 hours. If a follow on repair is required then its contractors will arrange a mutually convenient appointment with the resident.
2. For all other repairs an appointment will be made within a 20 working day timescale, or to suit tenant requirements.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman is unable to make a finding of discrimination against the resident as it goes beyond our jurisdiction and is a matter better suited for consideration by the courts. Instead this assessment section considers the landlord’s responses to each of the complaints raised by the resident and progressed fully through the landlord’s complaints process.

Repairs to the intercom system

The landlord has a duty to undertake repairs to the communal intercom system. Such systems, like any communal or specific resident repair will arise from time to time. The recurrence of a particular repair issue does not necessarily demonstrate the presence of an underlying fault that requires a more in-depth investigation and fix. It may be that a repair issue will arise repeatedly, and the landlord not have committed any maladministration if it responds appropriately with repairs when an issue arises. Nevertheless, the resident has repeatedly reported issues with the intercom system to the landlord over a period of at least two years. There were large periods of time that the work remained outstanding and which the landlord has been unable to provide an explanation for.
The landlord and resident’s records of communications and repair notes show different dates that the intercom system has been outstanding for, with the total length of time being unclear. The landlord has acknowledged at the least the system had been having significant problems and lacked functionality over the period of 4 January 2019 to 1 April 2020. The final compensation offer it made to the resident on 15 September 2020 included an offer of £400 in recognition of the length of time the repair issue was outstanding and the trouble the resident had gone to prompt the landlord to undertake proper repairs. This was an appropriate response to the concerns raised by the resident and demonstrated a good faith attempt to resolve the complaint that flowed from the substantive issue. This was in addition to the rent refund referenced in the landlord’s 2 June 2020 letter, which it stated had been made to the resident and covered the period that the system was not working.
While the problems with the intercom system have demonstrably had an impact on the resident causing her stress and inconvenience, it is important to note that the disrepair of a communal intercom system will not be considered in the same way as an individual’s specific home being insecure or inaccessible due to a fault with an intercom system, as this would naturally have a greater impact on the resident and impart a greater imperative on the landlord to resolve. The landlord’s offer of compensation has been considered in light of this. The offer of £400 demonstrates a recognition by the landlord that the length of time the repair was outstanding was unacceptable based on what would be considered reasonable and when judged against its own repair standards. It has apologised for the delay, the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and demonstrated its commitment to ensuring such issues do not recur in future.
The resident has asserted that the issues with the intercom system remain outstanding, which is in contrast to the evidence that has been provided by the landlord on this point. As a result, I will make a recommendation that the landlord review the status of the intercom system at the time of the report and undertake any extra fix to it to ensure that access to the building is secure. It should provide an update to the resident on this point.

Landlord’s response to request for information regarding the service charge

On 31 March 2020 the landlord provided an explanation for the various service charges questioned by the resident, as well as providing a copy of the accounts for the 2019-2020 financial year. The evidence demonstrates that the resident has been requesting information from the landlord since at least 2018. The landlord has appropriately provided various pieces of evidence to the resident in response to these queries, though it has remained clear that these have not satisfied the resident’s request. While the landlord has provided some justification for the delays in providing this information such as the need to collate the figures between different parties, it is clear that the length of time the resident was waiting for and chasing a thorough response was unreasonable.
The landlord has acknowledged that the length of time it took to provide the requested information went well beyond what would be considered a reasonable period, requiring the resident to contact it on multiple occasions to seek information and then further clarification based on what she considered to be the unsatisfactory response of the landlord. In response to this, it has apologised and offered compensation to the resident of £275. This was an appropriate response to make in recognition of the distress the issues have caused to the resident and the effort it took her to receive the information she requested from the landlord at a much earlier date.

Landlord’s change to contact arrangements for residents during Covid-19 pandemic

The landlord has set out that the changes it has made to its contact arrangements with its tenants/leaseholders, including the resident, have been put in place in response to the unprecedented Covid-19 situation. It has conveyed to the resident in detail through its complaint responses that the situation has meant it is necessary for it to adapt its services. Its complaint responses set out in detail the steps it has taken to respond to the situation and why, noting its priority to maintain the obligations owed to its residents and that the changes have been necessary to meet said obligations.
While the change to the contact arrangements by the landlord has clearly caused distress to the resident, it has justified its position given the fact that its resources are limited and it is required to continue fulfilling its obligations to its residents across the board over the course of the pandemic. It has attempted to engage with the resident and show that it will continue to adapt the arrangements it has in place as it observes the workability of the initial arrangements established following the commencement of the government lockdown. It has also noted it will take on board the input of residents as to what is and isn’t working in terms of these arrangements so as to find the best possible balance between the needs of individual residents and the landlord’s obligations and limited resources.
The resident has expressed her belief that the plans to change the system of contact with residents had been planned to be implemented before the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic. While this may be the case, the landlord is nevertheless entitled to make changes to the methods its uses to carry out the delivery of its service obligations to residents, and has reasonably conveyed these changes to the resident.

Maintenance of the common areas on the block

The resident has raised concerns about the cleanliness of the block, asserting various points of concern including that the landlord has failed to carry out cleaning of the communal internal areas as well as ground maintenance on the garden areas, as well as issues with window cleaning. Nevertheless, there is minimal evidence of this nor consistent reports over a significant period of time to substantiate this position.
The landlord has undertaken a reasonable response by investigating the points raised by the resident. Its complaint responses have set out details of the work undertaken by its contractors in response to the allegations made by the resident, noting that the work took some time to get up to standard but that at this point it had no evidence that the work being undertaken was below standard. There has been minimal evidence provided by both parties of the standard of works being carried out, however on the available evidence the landlord has largely responded to the resident’s concerns thoroughly and promptly as they have arisen.
The landlord has noted the specific work being undertaken by its contractors, acknowledging the resident’s concerns about issues with fly tipping and rubbish as well as setting out the limits of its ability to ascertain who the specific offenders are but noting that it responds promptly to issues as they are raised. It also noted that it was meeting weekly with its contractors to discuss any issues with the latter meeting service standards while stating that it was largely satisfied with the work being undertaken. It also noted that a particular staff member was attending the block to ensure the work was being carried out to standard, which was appropriate rather than just relying on the reports of contractors.

Complaint-handling

The landlord has acknowledged that there have been failings, including delays, in responding to the complaints raised by the resident. The offer of £100 to the resident demonstrated a recognition by the landlord that it had failed to properly fulfil its duties to the resident and sought to resolve the situation. The offer was appropriate in the circumstances along with the apology made by the landlord and the commitment to ensure its service improved in future. It noted that it had arranged workshops for its staff to attend to assist them with further training regarding interactions with residents, in particular vulnerable ones, and that it would be continuing to evaluate the changes it had made to its processes during the Covid-19 pandemic to establish the best approach to meet all its obligations to residents. These were appropriate steps to take in response to the concerns raised by the resident.
The resident has also raised concerns about complaint-handling in response to the her reports of the alleged assault against her by a contractor in 2017. While the substantive matter has not been considered by the Ombudsman in this report, the updated complaint response the landlord made has been.
It was an appropriate step that the landlord engaged again with the resident’s concerns about the 2017 incident, considering it is clear that she did not feel supported by the landlord following this. This demonstrated an intention to provide a final resolution for both parties to the issue, and showed a proper engagement with the resident’s concerns as part of the complaint process.

Other issues

The resident has noted that she has a number of outstanding reports and complaints with the landlord that she wishes to be considered by the Ombudsman. These will need to exhaust the landlord’s complaint process before they can be considered for investigation, at which point the resident can raise the issues with the Ombudsman.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about the repairs to the intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about provision of information regarding the resident’s service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding its change to contact arrangements for resident’s during the Covid-19 pandemic.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been no maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to inadequate cleaning and maintenance work on the property.
In accordance with paragraph 55(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been reasonable redress by the landlord regarding its complaint-handling.

Reasons

The time that the repair issue of the intercom system was outstanding went well beyond the standards of its own policy and a reasonable consideration of what the landlord should have done in the circumstances. The landlord has recognised this, apologised and provided a substantial offer of compensation to the resident.
The landlord has acknowledged that the time taken to respond to her enquiries regarding the service charge went well beyond the time that it should have taken to respond. It has apologised, attempted to provide an explanation for why this occurred and also offered substantial compensation to the resident for the delays and inconvenience she experienced as a result of chasing up a response to her request.
The landlord has justified the position it has taken in regards to changing arrangements to its service delivery in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. It has put in place steps to continue to meet its obligations to each of the residents it has responsibilities to, while noting that it will continue to review these as circumstances continue to develop.
The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the common areas of the property. It has investigated the concerns she has raised and provided a response to the resident regarding the arrangements and processes it has in place to ensure its obligations to residents regarding this issue are being met.
The landlord has acknowledged its failings in its complaint response process, including its delays in providing responses. The offer of compensation was appropriate in the circumstances, acknowledging the resident’s concerns and the distress caused to her by the delays and other failings in the process.

Recommendations

I make the following recommendations:

a. The landlord, if it has not done so already, to pay to the resident within the next four weeks the offer of compensation previously made to her of £775, consisting of:

i. £275 for the handling of the service charge information requests;

ii. £400 for the handling of the requests to have the door entry system fixed;

iii. £100 for complaint-handling.

b. The landlord to liaise with the resident regarding any outstanding issues with the functionality of the intercom system to ensure that these are resolved within the next 8 weeks.

The finding of reasonable redress is conditional on the above recommendations being implemented.