Stonewater Limited (202221722)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221722

Stonewater Limited

28 February 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the redeployment of the resident warden.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property, which is a one-bedroom flat, since 7 January 2021. The property is located in an independent living scheme for older residents. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
  2. Residents at the scheme fund a resident warden via service charges. The full charge for this in 2022-2023 was £27,031.43. The landlord refunded the residents £6,703.40 service charge that year for the period that the resident warden was absent due to illness.
  3. The landlord advised this service that it did not record the exact amount of time that the warden spent away from the scheme, helping with the induction and training of another member of staff, prior to the complaint. Records were, however, provided to confirm that all the relevant building safety checks were carried out at the scheme when the warden was absent.
  4. The resident advised this Service that his complaint was specifically regarding the warden being removed from the scheme to undertake training or similar activities. He said that he understood that the warden would be absent while on annual leave and would also be absent when attending one other scheme to cover safety checks when that warden was on annual leave.
  5. The resident made a formal complaint on 31 October 2022. He complained that the full-time resident warden at the scheme was being assigned duties elsewhere. He said that this meant that residents were being deprived of services.
  6. The resident directed the landlord to the 5th schedule of the lease which stated that the landlord should “maintain at all times the services of a resident warden within the development” unless it was beyond its control. The resident said that this was being breached when the warden carried out a training role elsewhere. The resident said that the leaseholders paid for a full-time warden and expected him to be on duty at the scheme and that this was especially important when the lifts were not working.
  7. He asked that the warden was not assigned duties away from the property until the legal position was considered and the lift was working again. He requested that residents were asked permission prior to removing the warden for other duties and said that compensation should be given for the removal of services.
  8. The resident suggested that the landlord should appoint a relief or training warden to carry out these duties. He challenged the landlord’s opinion that the warden could carry out his duties remotely via a mobile phone. He said that this was not possible because the warden’s office was situated to assist with security when visitors came to the site and that elderly residents felt reassured by his presence. This was particularly relevant when the lift was not working.
  9. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2022 and responded on 11 November 2022. It said that it was usual practice for new wardens to receive some training from existing staff members when they were first in post. It said that it would not be practical to employ a relief staff member and that the warden was available via mobile phone when he was working elsewhere. It said that the lease did not stipulate that permission should be requested from residents for the warden to work elsewhere. It also said that having reviewed the lease there was no legal issue with the warden occasionally being off site to assist other staff.
  10. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process on 22 November 2022. He said that the landlord had not considered that there were over 40 residents in the scheme that were over 80 years old, approximately 15 of which were in their nineties. He said that the landlord assumed they all had access to the internet and could communicate effectively by telephone, but this was not the case. The resident said that the landlord did not understand the reassurance and confidence that the physical presence of a warden gave to elderly residents.
  11. The resident went on to say that the operational needs of the landlord should not impact the residents in the scheme and that the same level of service could not be provided by mobile phone.
  12. The landlord acknowledged the escalation to stage 2 of the complaints process on the 29 November 2022 and responded on 13 December 2022. The landlord confirmed that its previous responses were upheld and that it was satisfied that residents could raise an alarm if in difficulty and that this would be answered.
  13. It explained that all residents of the scheme had the option to receive wellbeing calls and that it carried out 6 monthly updates to make sure that the call monitoring contractor held up to date personal information about the residents. It said that it understood that having a warden on site was reassuring but also recognised that sometimes this was not possible, for example due to staff sickness. It explained that wellbeing calls were still made if the warden was absent and the regional managers contact details were also distributed to residents in this instance. It also said that if a staff member was needed at the scheme another warden from a neighbouring scheme would attend.
  14. The resident remained unhappy with this response and referred the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the redeployment of the resident warden.

  1. The lease states that the landlord is “to maintain at all times the services of a resident warden for the performance within the development of the following duties” and goes on to list the duties. It also states that “the association shall not be liable for any temporary withdrawal of the warden’s services for causes beyond their reasonable control”.
  2. The withdrawal of the wardens’ services from within the development to carry out training at other sites was within the landlord’s control and the landlord would have had advance knowledge of this. Therefore, this would not be in accordance with the lease and this was a failing by the landlord. The lift was out of order for some of the time that the landlord redeployed the resident warden which caused the elderly residents extra distress as some of them had mobility issues and the reassurance and security that a resident warden provided was also not available.
  3. The warden’s role description says, “this role is pivotal in supporting the drive forward of our “Ageing Well” agenda, and ensuring delivery of safe and vibrant environments, that are housing management compliant and places older people want to be”. This shows that the landlord understood the importance of the resident warden being on site and that not all aspects of the role could be carried out remotely. Therefore, it is important that residents’ concerns were listened to and that residents were consulted and communicated with about  any avoidable absences.
  4. The landlord advised this Service that it informed the residents about the warden being absent from the scheme for training purposes by placing notices on the notice boards in the scheme. This would not be an effective communication method for some residents because they were not able to leave their properties due to mobility issues. It also relied on residents looking at the notice board on a regular basis. This would mean that many residents were unaware that the warden was not available. This would have led to confusion and further dissatisfaction because residents were fully funding the warden service. This poor communication method is a further failing by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the redeployment of the resident warden.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
  2. Pay the resident directly £250 in compensation for his time and trouble in progressing the complaint.
  3. Apologise to the resident in writing for its poor communication and for not adhering to the terms of the lease.
  4. Proof of compliance with the above orders should be provided to the Ombudsman within the required timeframe.
  5. In future the landlord should consult with residents in advance regarding any planned avoidable absences by the warden. This should be by email or letter, depending on the residents preferred contact method. If other communications methods are requested by residents these should also be considered. When absences are either not outside its reasonable control, or not due to the warden’s annual leave or reciprocal cover of annual leave at another scheme, the landlord should either:
    1. Provide alternative warden cover at the scheme, or
    2. Request advance permission of the resident’s group to redeploy the warden. If permission is granted a credit of the service charge should be provided equivalent for the time the warden is away.