The Papworth Trust (202014014)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014014

The Papworth Trust

28 November 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

1. The complaint is about the resident’s reports of:

1. The level and increase of rent and service charges.
2. Concerns about the sinking fund.
3. The standard of cleaning and maintenance of the communal areas, including the bins stores and decision to remove potted plants.
4. The landlord’s handling of a repair to the resident’s hallway light.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the resident’s complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
   1. The level and increase of rent and service charges.
   2. The concerns about the sinking fund.
4. Section 42(e) of the Scheme states “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
5. The resident raised a complaint along with other members of the estate about the level of rent and service charge. In response the landlord had reviewed the service charge income and expenditure over the past 3 years and spoke with its housing management on the rental levels and how they were set. Following this, the landlord proceeded to break down and explained the charges for each of the years to the resident. However, she remained dissatisfied and was seeking for the landlord to lower the charges.
6. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are about the level of rent or service charges and is not able to issue a binding decision on what a charge should be. However, some complaints about the level of rent or service charge may be considered by the First Tier Property Tribunal. The resident should contact the First Tier Property Tribunal about the service charges and sinking fund issues, to see if this is a matter that it would consider, should she wish to pursue this matter. This is because the First Tier Property Tribunal may be able to determine whether or not the charges in question are reasonable.

Background and Summary of events

7. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat.
8. On 5 August 2020 the local fire and rescue service sent a regulatory reform order letter to the landlord to inform it of minor deficiencies in the estate. It provided the landlord with measures it needed to carry out in order to comply with current legislation. These included upgrading the smoke detector, repairing a fire door, ensuring doors were not wedged open, and updating fire notices around the premises. Following this the landlord wrote to its residents to inform them of the outcome of this visit, and what next steps were required.
9. The resident stated she had made a formal complaint about the maintenance of the estate to the landlord on 20 November 2020, however it stated it did not receive a complaint from her. She contacted this service to have the matter escalated, however we explained that she needed to exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure first.  Following this we wrote to the landlord to inform it of the issues raised. These were concerning rent increases, service charges, and the maintenance of the estate.
10. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 9 March 2021, it requested additional information from the resident, this was received on 21 April 2021 and a further email was received on 13 May 2021.
11. The resident had expressed concerns about cleaning and maintenance. She explained that she rarely saw or heard anyone cleaning the estate. The resident expressed that the maintenance of the property was overlooked with essential and necessary repairs being ignored for long periods of time.
12. The resident explained that she had raised concerns with the landlord about her water temperature being non-compliant and had to wait a period of time before an engineer came to test it. At the time she was concerned about legionella risk. She also expressed there was a delay in the landlord sorting problems with the roof, and the automatic light in the hallway. As a result of this light not being replaced sooner, she had fallen over.
13. The resident had also explained that she had asked a fire officer to inspect the premises after the landlord removed plants stating they were a fire hazard. She did not believe they were a fire hazard and stated this was confirmed by the officer.
14. The resident had also disputed the costs of insurance. She wanted clarity on why she was paying insurance for the building and contents when this should be the responsibility of the landlord.
15. The landlord proceeded to issue its response on 24 May 2021. In response to the resident’s concerns about not seeing cleaning occurring in the estate, the landlord explained that cleaning contractors should be attending once a month. It provided the resident with the cleaner’s schedule and explained that, following each visit, if the resident felt areas were not cleaned to satisfaction, she should inform the landlord.
16. In response to the resident feeling that maintenance of the property is overlooked and repairs are ignored the landlord asked her to confirm what repairs were outstanding. It explained that it only had one current job open which was regarding the front door, and this was being attended to.
17. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about legionella risks and explained that assessments are undertaken every two years for legionella and it undertakes monthly testing of water in communal areas. The landlord had explained that temperature restrictors were previously placed on the outlets in the resident’s property in an effort to prevent scalding. However, these had since been removed and the landlord apologised for any distress caused.
18. In response to the removal of the plants, the landlord advised that it had previously explained its rationale for requiring the removal of the items. Following the removal, it stated it had provided the items removed to the resident.
19. In response to the roof repairs, the landlord explained this was a previous repair that was dealt with in 2019.
20. The landlord acknowledged an email had been sent to it on 11 March 2021 about repairs to the hallway light, it apologised that this had not been resolved and recognised that this fell below its service standards. The landlord stated that it would ask the repairs team to contact the resident urgently to book this work in.
21. In relation to the resident being upset that no provisions were made by the landlord when the weather was icy, it explained that it is not responsible for gritting the outside spaces.
22. As the resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response, she escalated her complaint to stage two on 10 June 2021. The landlord acknowledged this on 16 June 2021. It proceeded to issue its stage two response on 1 July 2021 and reiterated its stance in the stage one response.
23. The landlord explained that it had liaised with its cleaning company and checked repairs to the estate and flat.
24. The landlord explained that it had spoken with its cleaning contractors and confirmed they had been working to the schedule which was recently provided to the resident. The landlord explained that the monthly clean was part of the tenant consultation. The landlord had explained that it was noticed by the cleaners that various residents contributed to mess in the estate and were not clearing this up. The landlord explained that, if it were to re-consult with residents and implement more regular cleans to the estate, this would increase the costs.
25. In regards to the bin store, the landlord clarified that the issue was regarding how the residents dispose of their waste. It said that its housing officer on multiple occasions had spoken with residents and provided information on how to properly dispose of waste.
26. The resident escalated the complaint to stage three of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 17 July 2021 and the landlord acknowledged this on 19 July 2021. Subsequently it had arranged for a resident panel which took place on 17 August 2021, this was to discuss the concerns raised by the resident and if the landlord had acted appropriately, it was also to discuss where there was room for improvement.
27. Following this, the landlord provided the resident with a stage three response on 24 August 2021. The landlord explained to the resident that to investigate and review the complaint it convened a tenant panel and provided them with anonymised copies of the stage 1 to 3 complaints and supporting documents.
28. Overall, the tenant panel found that the landlord had provided appropriate responses in stage 1 and 2. In regards to the cleaning they recommended the landlord introduce a sign in/out sheet, telephone contact or photographs.
29. The tenant panel had explained that it felt the initial response could have been dealt with more sensitively, which the landlord apologised for.
30. As the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she brought the complaint to this service for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

31. This service notes the resident states issues concerning delays in historic repairs. This service has noted this as context, however, will not look back into historic issues reported. This is because sections 42(b) and (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme state this service will not consider matters that were not brought to the Ombudsman’s attention within 12 months of the resident exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure, and may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This service has considered the most recent incident of reported repairs which is relevant to the landlord’s formal responses.
32. This service has considered matters pertaining to the cleaning and maintenance of communal areas and alleged delayed responses to repairs.

The standard of cleaning and maintenance of the communal areas, including the bins stores and decision to remove potted plants.

Cleanliness

33. The resident expressed that she was unhappy with the cleaning and maintenance of the communal areas. In particular she had questioned whether cleaning was being conducted.
34. When the resident expressed her concerns about cleaning on the estate, the landlord proceeded to investigate the matter and was in communication with its cleaning company to ensure that it was carrying out the works as scheduled. The evidence shows that this was being carried out as per the agreement set out in section 6 of the estate management policy.
35. This service has reviewed several estate site inspection reports to get an understanding as to whether the cleanliness of the estate was ever noted down as unsatisfactory. On reviewing this information, this service can see that the cleanliness of the estate was noted as satisfactory.
36. To provide further reassurance to the resident, this service has seen that the landlord investigated her concerns about whether the cleaning was taking place, and it discussed monitoring measures with its cleaning contractors, such as a sign in and out sheet and taking photos. It was then agreed that it would start completing time sheets.
37. The evidence shows that the landlord also explored the option of having a deep clean of the estate more regularly, however we had not seen that this has commenced as it would incur additional costs to the residents.
38. Overall, this service finds the landlord was proactive in considering the resident’s concerns, investigated the matter thoroughly and also looked into alternatives on how to improve its service. On reviewing the information available, this service has not seen evidence to suggest there is any service failing by the landlord.
39. Whilst this service has not seen a service failing by the landlord’s contractors in terms of its duties with cleaning the estate, we understand that with monthly communal cleans it is likely the estate may become unclean at times. Taking this into consideration and given the resident’s concerns, this service is recommending the landlord hold a consultation with its residents to discuss the matter further so they are able to decide if they would benefit from cleaning more regularly. In accordance with the landlord’s estate management policy, this service understands that this implementation would affect residents’ charges, however the landlord should inform them of the associated costs, so they are able to make an informed decision.

Bin stores

40. This service can see that during 2020, following several reports about the condition of the bin stores, and they had not been collected by local authority, this resulted in the landlord having to arrange for its contractors to clean the bins. The landlord sent a letter to all residents about ensuring waste was being disposed of properly.
41. It is understood the resident was unhappy with the bin stores, and the associated charge for cleaning the bins. In response the landlord had explained to the resident that it is unable to police residents to ensure they are disposing of waste and recycling appropriately.
42. Sections 2.6(a) of the Estate management policy says, where the landlord arranges for regular basis cleaning of the communal spaces, should residents or their guests misuse the areas or cause a need for increased cleaning, the landlord will recharge the cost of the extra cleaning to the relevant tenant.
43. Section 6.3 of the policy in reference to bin stores, says “tenants and leaseholders are responsible for keeping the bin stores clean, free from litter and unwanted household bulk. The landlord will liaise with any other managing agent who has tenants using the stores as appropriate”.
44. In this instance this service has reviewed the repairs order and can see that during 2020 the landlord had to arrange the collection of rubbish. This service has also viewed the monthly estate inspection reports and can see that on one occasion, during April 2021, it was noted that the bins area was unsatisfactory.
45. Whilst this service understands the resident’s upset with having to pay additional charges, we also understand it can be difficult for landlords to manage household waste. As per the estate management policy, it is reasonable for the landlord to charge any costs incurred as a result of residents not disposing of rubbish properly under the service charge. Therefore, we are unable to say there was a service failing by the landlord.

Removal of potted plants

46. This service understands the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision to remove potted plants in the space between her estate and the neighbouring estate, which left an empty space of gravel. It is understood the landlord had explained its action to do so was because it posed a fire hazard. However, after the resident consulted with the fire department she was told it was not a fire hazard.
47. Whilst this service understands the resident’s upset with the landlord’s decision to remove the plants, on reviewing the landlord’s policies we have not seen evidence to suggest that it is a requirement for the landlord to reinstate the potted plants. We recognise the resident has expressed concerns regarding conflicting information as to whether the potted plants posed a fire risk, although as we have not seen evidence to support the resident’s claims. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that, as the landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the estate, and it is not an obligatory requirement to have potted plants, it is within the landlord’s discretion to make such a decision.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s hallway light.

48. The resident had expressed that she had waited for over a year to have the automatic light fixed in her hallway. She explained that she had fallen over 5 times as a result of being disabled and the lack of light meant she would have to stumble around in the dark.
49. This service has seen that the landlord stated that it had received her email regarding repairs on 23 September 2020 advising of the issue, however this was not addressed. Whilst this service recognises the landlord has stated that it received her request on 11 March 2020, which we have also seen evidence of, we are satisfied that the resident reported the matter to the landlord, and it was aware in 2020.
50. Section 6.4 of the landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 30 days. Therefore, when the resident reported repairs needed to the light, the landlord was responsible for fixing this.
51. The evidence shows that following the landlord’s stage one response dated 24 May 2021, it arranged for repairs to this light and sincerely apologised for its delay.
52. In considering the fact, this service has seen that the landlord did not act in accordance with its terms. Whilst we recognise the landlord apologised for the delay, this resulted in the resident having to chase the landlord which caused further upset, and therefore an apology did not constitute full redress for the service failure identified .
53. In recognition of the landlord’s service failings, this service has considered its compensation and goodwill policy. Section 2.2 states the landlord will consider compensation if it has failed to meet its own service targets. Section 3.1 states where a failure of issue is not resolved within a reasonable time period it will compensation between £20 to £100. Considering the resident’s testimony and the fact she had to wait eight months before this matter was resolved, this service will be ordering the maximum amount.

Determination (decision)

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the standard of cleaning and maintenance of the communal areas, including the bins stores and decision to remove potted plants.
55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repair to the resident’s hallway light.

Reasons

56. This service has seen no service failings by the landlord or its cleaning contractors. The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns appropriately and considered improvements in an effort to address the resident’s concerns.
57. The landlord did not act in accordance with its policy when the resident reported a repair. The length of time to make repair was considered unreasonable.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

58. The landlord to compensate the resident £100 for the delays in repairing her hallway light. This is to be completed within four weeks of the date of this determination letter.

Recommendations

59. The landlord holds a consultation with its residents to discuss the matter further so they can decide if they would benefit from communal cleaning more regularly. The landlord should inform its residents of the associated costs, so they are able to make an informed decision.