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

The Riverside Group Limited (201915347)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915347

The Riverside Group Limited

5 February 2021


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s response to his reports of issues with the general cleanliness of the bin store and communal hallway, a broken communal door, maintenance of the car park and noise nuisance from the property above.
  2. The resident has also complained about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.
  3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaints about flies in his flat in 2018 due to a rotting corpse in a neighbouring flat, damp in his property in 2017/18 arising shortly after he moved in and a member staff joining and posting on a forum for the landlord’s tenants are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme.
  4. The role of this Service is to consider how a member landlord has dealt with a formal complaint that has been brought to it that remains unresolved following completion of its complaints procedure.  In accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme investigations carried out by this Service are limited to those matters considered within the complaints procedure, which in this case was completed on 17 April 2020.  The matters that have been investigated are as above, in paragraph 1, and were identified to the parties on 14 July 2020, after the complaint was accepted for investigation.
  5. Additionally, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters 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”.  In accordance with paragraphs 39(e) of the Scheme, matters of dissatisfaction must be brought first to the landlord as a complaint; a report of nuisance or disrepair does not equate to a complaint. Although the resident may have raised his concerns about flies in his property and the dampness in his property at the time, there is no evidence that they were raised as a formal complaint within 6 months which subsequently completed the complaints procedure. 
  6. Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. The resident has requested a refund of service charges for grounds maintenance and cleaning.  The First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), unlike this Service, can make determinations on all aspects of the liability to pay a service charge, including by whom, to who, how much and when a service charge is payable. In order to decide liability a tribunal also decides whether service charge costs have been reasonably incurred and if so whether the standard of any services or works for which the costs are charged is reasonable.  Therefore in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.  The property is a one bedroom flat and the tenancy commenced on 16 October 2017. He pays a service charge which covers contract cleaning, landscaping and window cleaning. There are two bin stores at the block.
  2. On 1 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord raising concerns about the build-up of rubbish in the recycling bin store area over eight weeks.  He stated that he made several previous reports but the matter had not been dealt with. He also raised concerns about noise from the upstairs flat and that the tenant kept a dog.  The resident has advised this Service that he had reported noise and submitted recordings for the previous two years, and has provided copies of recordings from 2019.
  3. The resident has advised that prior to his formal complaint he reported broken communal doors, and that a contractor attended in February 2019.  He phoned the local authority fire and safety environmental health which sent out the fire brigade to inspect.  The fire service agreed the door was too dangerous.  The resident has further stated at one point an engineer used an electric saw to cut through the door but electrocuted himself and scorched the door.  
  4. The landlord’s correspondence confirms that the resident raised concerns about the condition of the bin store area in March 2020, and that it subsequently inspected, identifying a build–up of algae over the winter months.
  5. On 6 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord raising concerns about the condition of the car park and bin areas, mentioning the presence of rats.  He stated that the landlord had told him to contact the council about rubbish in the car park when it was in fact part of the landlord’s cleaning service.   The resident advised that the handles of each of the communal entrance doors to the building were broken and the doors needed to be slammed such, causing nuisance.  He also raised concerns about the communal cleaning being carried out with cold water, people bringing in dirty green slime when walking from the communal bins to their flats and vomit on the walls and skirting.  The resident noted that he had previously made online reports of these issues and that the landlord did not check that services were provided.   The resident also noted that he had previously emailed the landlord on 13 February 2020 although a copy of this email has not been provided to this Service.
  6. On 19 March 2020, the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. It advised that it had discussed the issues raised with its Environmental Services Team and the cleaning contractor. The Environmental Services Team had advised that there was algae in the bin store area, not moss, and it had been asked to jet wash the area.  The landlord also stated that it had requested a letter to all residents to remind them to keep the bin store area clean and tidy.
  7. The landlord stated that it had carried out an audit of the cleaning “a couple of weeks ago” and the supervisor reported that it was of a satisfactory standard. However, it would ensure the skirting boards were cleaned and would review the general standard of the cleaning. On 24 March 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its cleaning contractor would inspect and clean the communal areas. The contractor advised the landlord after inspecting that the cleaning was good and that there was no sign of vomit.
  8. The landlord escalated the complaint on 30 March 2020 after the resident stated that there was still vomit on skirting boards by his door and that cleaners were not using hot water. The landlord also noted that the resident was unhappy that the bins shed area was still covered in algae. In a further phone call on 31 March 2020 the resident raised concerns about noise from the flat above from music and a dog, the grass cutting service and a stolen van in the car park area since 2018.
  9. On 17 April 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint.  It apologised for the delay explaining that it needed to gather evidence which was hampered by lockdown measures.
    1. With regards to the cleanliness of the communal bin store, the landlord stated it was unable to deliver the full range of environmental services due to lockdown restrictions, only urgent jobs.  Therefore, while it agreed that a video provided by the resident showing fly-tipping was unsatisfactory, it could not remove the items at that time. With regards to the bin store floor, the landlord referred to the findings of its Environmental Team as stated in the Stage 1 response.  This was that the issue was algae not moss, and that it would jet wash the area once day–to–day environmental operations were allowed to start.
    2. With regards to the cleaning of the communal hallway, the landlord stated that the cleaning contractor had inspected and found that the communal hallway was cleaned to a satisfactory standard.   The contractor advised that the skirting boards would be cleaned and the standards would be monitored although there was at that time no cleaning due to lockdown.  The landlord added that services not being delivered would be taken into account under the next service charge review in March/April 2021.
    3. With regards to the communal front door, the landlord advised that it had been ordered but that there was a delay in the delivery and installation due to the national slowdown in the manufacturing industry.
    4. With regards to the maintenance of the car park and grassed area, the landlord stated that once lockdown ended a full inspection of the car park and grassed areas would be undertaken to establish the issues and to formulate a plan to cut back the grass, remove rubbish and clean up the car park.
    5. With regards to noise/nuisance the landlord noted that the resident had made numerous reports of excessive music being played by several neighbours.  The landlord noted that the Housing Officer in 2019 had witnessed noise on a visit, asked the neighbour to lower or turn off the music and issued a formal warning.  The landlord noted that it had advised the resident on several occasions that noise recordings made on the resident’s mobile phone sent via the landlord’s noise app did not provide evidence of excessive noise levels at unsocial hours.  It stated that it was therefore correct in advising that it could not take enforcement action. The landlord further stated that it had arranged for sound monitoring equipment to be installed after lockdown had been lifted.

The landlord also stated that it would keep the resident fully informed of progress and timescales over the coming weeks/months.

After the Complaints Procedure

Noise Nuisance

  1. On 16 April 2020, the resident advised the landlord that he had three recordings of music from the flat above which the landlord asked him to submit through its noise app. The resident submitted recordings on 20 April 2020. The resident made further reports of noise and loud music on 8 May 2020, 18 May 2020, 20 May 2020, 2 June 2020 and 3 June 2020 from two neighbouring flats. The landlord advised that there was an open noise case and that it would be responding soon, and that it would send a warning whilst waiting to visit. On 25 June 2020 the resident spoke again to the landlord again raising concerns about noise from the upstairs flat.
  2. On 10 July 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its Community Safety Team was dealing with his ASB reports. The resident made a further report of noise on 24 July 2020 and after listening to recordings provided  the landlord warned the neighbour about noise from her flat on 31 July 2020, and advised the resident of the action it had taken.  On the same day the resident reiterated his request for noise equipment noting that he had been using noise apps and dictaphones since August 2019. The resident made further reports of noise on 10 and 18 August 2020.

Bin Store

  1. In response to further contact from the resident, on 4 May 2020 and 2 July 2020 the landlord reiterated that it would not remove fly-tipping from the bin-store area until lockdown restrictions were removed. On 8 July 2020, after the easing of restrictions,  both bin stores were cleared of fly-tipping and jet washed.  The landlord’s internal correspondence on 10 July 2020 also confirm that it sent a letter to all residents in the block asking them to maintain the bin stores and not leave items there. On 13 July 2020 the resident reported  that the bin sheds had been cleaned but rubbish was left behind and that another resident had left furniture in the wrong bin shed. Internal emails sent on 14 July 2020 confirm that the landlord asked for rubbish to be removed from behind the sheds and whether a notice could be put on an abandoned van. On 17 July 2020 the landlord advised the resident that it would clear rubbish behind the bin store  but it was the residents’ responsibility to arrange the removal of large items.

Communal Door

  1. Following a conversation with the resident, on 27 April 2020, the landlord raised a priority repair for the communal doors, noting that non-residents had been accessing the building. On 4 May 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking for details of the door suppliers and the invoice as he disputed that the order had been made and he wanted to check if they were out of stock.
  2. On 2 July 2020 the resident reported that the inside door handles to the front communal door nearest to the bin store was faulty and did not constantly work, the fob system from the outside did not work and the intercom system did not ring through to his flat. On the same day the landlord advised the resident that its contractor attended on 16 June 2020 to repair the handles and locks, and that its contract supervisor would contact the upvc manufacturer to see if they were back in work and when they could repair the damaged door frame. The landlord further stated that there would be a further assessment to reassess the door and a job would be raised for its electrical contractor to resolve the resident’s issue with the intercom.
  3. There was a missed appointment for the intercom on 3 July 2020, rearranged for 13 July 2020.  However, the engineer could not resolve intercom problems on 13 July 2020 and the resident subsequently informed the landlord that he felt unsafe due to the condition of the front doors.
  4. In the interim, on 10 July 2020 the landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the door and frame and recommended renewing these items as they came in a set and a repair was not possible. On 15 July 2020, the landlord raised an order for a door and frame to be measured up, then manufactured. On 17 July 2020 the landlord advised the resident that the door and frame had been ordered as well as a replacement release mechanism. It anticipated a three week turnaround for the doors. An internal email sent on 5 August 2020 noted that the landlord’s contractor and its usual supplier was no longer operating and it could not get the door manufactured to take the electronic mechanism. It had therefore asked its electrical contractor to source the door.  The landlord also asked its electrical contractor to look into the resident’s intercom issues, and on 7 August 2020 the contractor reported that the system appeared to be working, but the resident had advised it that it only worked intermittently for him.
  5. On 14 August 2020  the resident advised that the door was still broken and that he intended to move out.  There were discussions about the relinquishment of the resident’s tenancy and it is understood that the resident stayed away from his flat for a period but there is no evidence has not been provided confirming that the resident’s tenancy was ultimately terminated. The landlord has not confirmed to this Service if the door was replaced; however, the resident advised that the door was replaced in late December 2020.

Cleaning

  1. On 27 April 2020, the landlord raised a priority job for the cleaning of “hazardous waste”, blood splatters on the floor and on 5 May 2020 advised the resident that its contractor had attended. It noted that the resident was “not completely satisfied but was happy to have a response”.  On 20 May 2020 the resident advised this Service that the cleaning company attended but did not clean the floor.  On 26 May 2020, at his request, the landlord sent the resident the cleaning specification for communal areas after the resident had made requests for a copy. It is not clear to what extent the resident raised his concerns about the cleaning service with the landlord thereafter but he has advised this Service that in his view, as of 29 December 2020, there were still traces of vomit and blood in the building.

Car Park and Grassed Area

  1. On 11 May 2020 the resident sent pictures to support his complaint about the gardening service raising concerns about landscaping, sweeping up the grass and uneven cutting.  There is no evidence that the resident made further reports about the car park and grassed area. The landlord has noted from a phone call made by the resident on 26 May 2020 that he stated “the gardens have been done well”.

Contact Restrictions

  1. On 3 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it would be applying its Unreasonable Behaviour Procedure.  It listed the circumstances under which the policy could be applied and noted that the resident had shouted and swore at three members of staff during phone calls on 2 July 2020.  The landlord appointed a designated contact whom the resident could email once a week, and advised that the decision would be reviewed after 6 months. The resident submitted his appeal on 16 July 2020 advising of his frustration with the matters he had contacted the landlord about and maintaining that he had good reason to make contact. Amongst other issues, he noted that he had over 300 recording of dance music after 9.00pm, one of the main entrance doors did not open, and that he had been told firstly the door was ordered, then the company had ceased to trade and then there was a delay in manufacturing.,
  2. On 5 August 2020 the landlord responded to the resident’s appeal and rejected it.  The landlord made comment about the resident’s actions under each of the nine circumstances under which its Unreasonable Behaviour Procedure may be applied. Amongst the points made, the landlord noted that the resident continued to contact it despite being informed about timescales for his repairs to be completed, particularly during the period of lockdown, and being aware that some repairs could not be undertaken under lockdown.  The landlord also noted that the resident’s persistent contact with a member of staff and correspondence to the Chief Executive was unacceptable.  The landlord also noted that the resident had sent a senior member of staff “countless” videos, photos and messages via WhatsApp in contradiction to advice to contact the Housing Officer.
  3. On 17 August 2020 the landlord wrote to resident warning him as since 31 July 2020 he had exceeded the frequency of contact that it had set, and had also phoned staff, including calling one member of staff 54 times on 11 August 2020.  

Assessment and findings

Noise Nuisance

  1. It is important to reiterate at the outset that it is not for this Service to investigate the reports made by the resident and determine if the behaviour reported here constituted ASB, as that was a judgement which fell to the landlord to determine. It must also be recognised that responsibility for ASB lies with the perpetrator, not the landlord. The landlord however, has responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, and that it has adequate and effective procedures in place for doing so. The role of this Service is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports, including to what extent the landlord followed its own procedure, in response to the reported ASB.
  2. It should also be noted that a resolution which suits all parties may not be possible in cases where there are lifestyle differences or personality clashes, resulting in neighbour disputes rather than ASB, for example.
  3. Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It is therefore important that a landlord has in place procedures to ensure reports of ASB are appropriately and effectively responded to.
  4. The landlord’s Anti-Social Behaviour Policy states that the landlord when tackling anti-social behaviour will “strive to:
    1. Take all complaints of nuisance and anti-social behaviour seriously, and respond promptly in an effective and sensitive manner aiming to resolve issues.
    2. Acknowledge that each case of anti-social behaviour is different and take a harm centred approach to dealing with the issue, tailoring the support offered to victims and witnesses appropriately
    3. Keep complainants informed of developments as appropriate
    4. Consider and where appropriate use intervention measures such as mediation services, referral to agencies such as floating support providers and inter agency partnerships.”
  5. Although full contemporaneous reports have not been provided to this Service, the parties have not  disputed that the resident has made numerous reports about noise over a period of time, and in his correspondence the resident has indicated 2-3 years.  The landlord had an obligation to investigate the reports and reach an informed decision on what further action to take, as confirmed in its ASB policy.  It is not disputed that the resident has provided recordings of noise through a noise app which provides an accurate record of noise.  The landlord concluded in the Stage 2 response that, overall, there had been no evidence of excessive noise at unsocial hours. However, there is no evidence of the landlord explaining why it did not consider there was evidence to support formal enforcement action and what alternative action could be taken based on the recordings provided. It is also not evident that the landlord sought to establish the full situation by asking the resident to complete diary sheets which would allow it to establish the nature, frequency and impact of reported noise/ ASB, or that it responded to the resident’s reports of a dog in the building.
  6. Landlords should consider legal action to be a last resort and should focus on supporting tenants in maintaining their tenancies and good relations with their neighbours.  Indeed, the landlord’s ASB policy recognises that interventions such as mediation can meet this end. Mediation can be useful for resolving neighbour disputes arising from lifestyle issues, allowing each party to understand the other party’s viewpoint and reach a mutual agreement on the way forward. However, there is no evidence that prior to the resident’s complaint  the landlord considered mediation.  It is also not evident that the landlord considered other interventions such as notifying the neighbours about the alleged noise to give them the opportunity to modify the behaviour complained of, seeking their agreement on how they and their visitors would behave or referring the resident to the local authority for consideration of whether there was a statutory nuisance.    It is therefore concluded that the landlord focused on whether the threshold for legal action was met but failed to adequately pursue non-legal remedies that may have contributed towards resolving the issues the resident was raising. 
  7. The resident continued to make reports of noise after the Stage 2 response. However, the landlord did not notify the neighbour of these further reports until 31 July 2020, over three months later. Whilst the landlord may not have been able to interview the resident in person due to lockdown restrictions, it was still able to communicate in writing or by phone.  Notifying the neighbour in this way would have given them the opportunity to provide their version of events and/or modify their behaviour. As such, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not make contact sooner, in particular because of the resident’s growing frustration.
  8. In summary, whilst the landlord has stated that it had considered the resident’s noise recordings there is no evidence of the landlord explaining why it did not consider there was evidence to support formal enforcement action and what alternative action could be taken based on the recordings provided. It is also not evident that the landlord sought to establish the full situation through an assessment of completed diary sheets or that it pursued non-legal interventions to resolve the resident’s reports.  Furthermore, after the resident made further reports after the Stage 2 response the landlord delayed in taking action.

Bin Store

  1. In his email of 6 March 2020 the resident focussed on the bin shed area being covered with algae at that time and the presence of fly-tipped item.  The landlord’s cleaning specification does not require cleaning or maintenance of the ground in the bin store area, therefore the landlord demonstrated a commitment to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint by agreeing to jet wash the area.  The introduction of the Covid 19 lockdown in March 2020 delayed this action being taken, but this was outside the landlord’s control.  The bin store area was jet-washed on 8 July 2020, soon after the easing of lockdown restrictions on 4 July 2020, and as such was carried out adequately promptly when practically possible.
  2. The items that were fly-tipped in the bin-store area were also removed on 8 July 2020,  which again was adequately prompt when practically possible. The landlord also took steps to manage the resident’s expectations about timescales by advising that it could not carry the full range of environmental services during lockdown in its Stage 2 response and further contact with the resident.
  3. The landlord also clarified the responsibilities of the parties stating that residents were responsible for removing large items that could not be taken with the regular refuse collection. However, the build-up of items in the area in the bin-store area was not an isolated incident and was of obvious concern to the resident.  The landlord missed an opportunity to make clear to him how it would deal with future incidents, including the circumstances when it would take responsibility for removing items, and a recommendation has been made in this regard.

Communal Door

  1. The landlord is obliged to keep the structure and exterior of the building in good repair, which includes the communal front doors and the intercom system attached to them.
  2. The resident initially contended that there was disrepair to both communal entrance doors as they could not close easily in his complaint of 6 March 2020.  The landlord delayed in confirming its position on the issue insofar as it omitted to respond to the issue in the Stage 1 response.  The stage 2 response was also inadequate as it stated that a door would be replaced but did not make clear the reason why.  Furthermore, the landlord did not acknowledge how long the door had been in disrepair or outline any previous steps to resolve the issues with the door(s) therefore it did not assess to what extent there had been a failure in its repair service or acknowledge the inconvenience to the resident.
  3. The landlord after the Stage 2 response updated the resident about the doors, as it had agreed to.   The correspondence on the case indicate the door manufacturer had stopped trading therefore could not provide the door that had been ordered and that the landlord advised the resident in June and July 2020 that further repairs had been attempted and the door would need to be surveyed again and re-ordered. The resident remained suspicious at this time that the landlord was delaying but there is no evidence of significant service failure at this time. However, after ordering the new door on 15 July 2020 the landlord advised the resident it would be installed within three weeks.  According to the resident, the door was not installed in this timeframe and the landlord did not provide further updates.  As such, the landlord ultimately did not meet the agreement in the Stage 2 response to provide updates and timescales, or otherwise manage the resident’s expectations.
  4. The resident also raised concerns with the intercom issue connected to the communal entrance doors. The landlord responded appropriately insofar as it asked its electrical contractor to inspect the system and the resident’s intercom.  However, it is not clear what the contractor ultimately diagnosed at that time or that the issues raised by the resident were ultimately resolved. As such, the landlord did not take the necessary action to resolve this aspect of the case.

Cleaning

  1. In assessing this complaint, it is not the role of the Ombudsman to investigate or audit the cleaning service that was provided and make a judgment about the service that was provided.  The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the reasonableness and appropriateness of the landlord’s actions in relation to the cleaning service and the concerns about it raised by the resident.
  2. As noted above the landlord has a communal cleaning specification which sets out the desired end results.  Flooring, doors and walls must be free from debris, marks, stains and dust. After the resident complained about the quality of the cleaning service in his complaint on 6 March 2020, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the cleaning was of a satisfactory standard at that time by arranging for its cleaning contractor to inspect, as confirmed by its response of 24 March 2020.  There remained a dispute over the quality of the cleaning, in particular with regards to traces of vomit on a section of skirting.  The landlord showed a commitment to resolve the complaint by agreeing in the Stage 2 response to clean the skirting and monitor the standard.  The contractor attended in late April / early May 2020 according to the correspondence on the case, prior to the end of lockdown. In this regard, the landlord took reasonable steps to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  3. However, it is noted that the standard of the cleaning remains a potential area of dispute, especially with regards to bodily fluids in communal areas. As well as having a service specification for cleaning services, landlords are expected to have adequate monitoring arrangements in place, Where residents are charged for the service these arrangements can ensure that the service provides value for money. It is therefore recommended that, if it has not already done so, the landlord introduces a formal procedure to monitor the cleaning service in relation to the service specification and advises the resident of the procedure. It is also recommended that the landlord makes clear to the resident how and when it will deal with bodily fluids and hazardous waste in communal area.
  4. The resident’s concern about paying a service charge for periods when the cleaning (and other services) were not being provided is understandable.  It is therefore also recommended that the landlord meets its commitment to review the service charge for 2021/22, taking into account the suspension of services, and that it clearly advises the resident the outcome of the review and the new service charge.

 

 

Car Park and Grassed Area

  1. In response to the concerns raised by the resident about the car park and grassed areas, the landlord at Stage 2 stated that it would inspect, then  formulate a plan to cut back the grass, remove rubbish and clean up the car park. The correspondence on the case indicates that the grass cutting service resumed in May 2020; however, there is no evidence that the landlord identified issues and formulated a plan to communicate to the resident.  This failure was  not in line with the action proposed at Stage 2 and did not serve to manage the resident’s expectations.  Additionally, the resident had raised a specific issue of an abandoned van in the car park area.  The landlord did not confirm what the process was for dealing with the van or the action it would take, therefore it failed to manage his expectations about this issue too. 

Complaints Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it aims to respond to Stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and Stage 2 within 10 working days. Although the Stage 1 response was not sent within 5 working days, it was sent within 10 working days which is a common timescale landlords have for responding to correspondence and therefore it was not significantly delayed.  The stage 2 complaint response was not sent within 10 working days but again the delay was 4 working days and did not cause significant detriment.  The landlord apologised for the delay and explained that it was due to difficulties obtaining information thereby providing reasonable redress for the delay.
  2. As the substantive issues complained of were not resolved, with works scheduled after the easing of lockdown, it was necessary that the landlord maintain contact with the resident about the issues. It is evident that the landlord did maintain contact with the resident, with the resident often initiating contact.  The landlord exercised its Unreasonable Behaviour Procedure which it was able to do with good reason.  It provided good reason insofar as it mentioned the level of contact made by the resident and referenced his behaviour during specific phone calls.  It was also reasonable that it sought to establish one point of contact as this arrangement would establish a clear line of communication for the resident  and better manage its resources as staff not directly responsible for providing updates or managing the complaint would not be contacted.
  3. The Unreasonable Behaviour Procedure allows an appeal. The landlord followed a fair process by considering the resident’s appeal and explaining why it considered the criteria for applying the procedure was met.  The landlord made comments under each of the criterium even though it is not necessary for all of them to be met for the procedure to be applied.  The procedure was also fair and proportionate as contact restrictions are not permanent but permanent time limited, in this case six months.  As six months have now passed, it is recommended that the landlord reviews the restriction.

Determination (decision)

Noise Nuisance

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.

Bin Store

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports about the bin store.

Communal Door

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports of a broken communal door.

Cleaning

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports about the cleaning.

Car Park and Grassed Area

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect to its response to the resident’s reports of issues in the car park and grassed areas.

Complaints Handling

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect to its complaints handling.

Reasons

Noise Nuisance

  1. In summary, whilst the landlord has stated that it had considered the resident’s noise recordings there is no evidence of the landlord explaining why it did not consider there was evidence to support formal enforcement action and what alternative action could be taken based on the recordings provided. It is also not evident that the landlord sought to establish the full situation through an assessment of completed diary sheets or that it pursued non-legal interventions to resolve the resident’s reports.  Furthermore, after the resident made further reports after the Stage 2 response the landlord delayed in taking action.

Bin Store

  1. The landlord jet-washed the bin store and removed fly-tipped items on 8 July 2020, soon after the easing of lockdown restrictions on 4 July 2020, and as such was carried out adequately promptly when practically possible. The landlord also took steps to manage the resident’s expectations about timescales by advising that it could not carry the full range of environmental services during lockdown in its Stage 2 response and further contact with the resident.

Communal Door

  1. In responding to the formal complaint, the landlord did not acknowledge how long the door had been in disrepair or outline any previous steps to resolve the issues with the door(s) therefore it did not assess to what extent there had been a failure in its repair service or acknowledge the inconvenience to the resident. After ordering the new door on 15 July 2020 the landlord ultimately did not meet the agreement in the Stage 2 response to provide updates and timescales, or otherwise manage the resident’s expectations.

Cleaning

  1. After the resident complained about the quality of the cleaning service in his complaint on 6 March 2020, the landlord took appropriate steps to ensure that the cleaning was of a satisfactory standard at that time by arranging for its cleaning contractor to inspect, as confirmed by its response of 24 March 2020.  The landlord took further steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about the cleaning by agreeing in the Stage 2 response to clean the skirting and monitor the standard and arranging for the cleaning contractor to subsequently re–attend. 

Car Park and Grassed Area

  1. Although the grass cutting service resumed, there is no evidence that the landlord formulated a plan to cut back the grass, remove rubbish and clean up the car park, as promised in the Stage 2 response. The landlord did not confirm what the process was for dealing with the van or the action it would take, therefore it failed to manage the resident’s expectation about this issue too.

Complaints Handling

  1. There were no significant delays in the landlord’s handling of the Stage 1 and 2 complaints, and the landlord in the Stage 2 response apologised and explained the delay which provided reasonable redress.  Although the landlord later exercised its Unreasonable Behaviour Procedure, it provided good reasons for doing so and followed a fair process by considering the resident’s appeal. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord pay the resident £250 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of noise nuisance.
  2. The landlord pays the resident £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in its handling of the repair to the communal door.
  3. The landlord pays the resident £50 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings in dealing with the car park and grassed areas issues that were raised.
  4. The landlord reviews the current situation in relation to the resident’s noise nuisance case, the repair to the communal door and intercom system and the car park and grassed area.  It should then advise the resident of the outcome of the review.  This should also include how it has dealt with / intends to deal with the van in the car park.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord advises the resident how it will deal with future instances of items accumulating in the bin store area, including the circumstances when it would take responsibility for removing items.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord introduces a formal procedure to monitor the cleaning service in relation to the service specification and advises the resident of the procedure. It is also recommended that the landlord makes clear to the resident how and when it will deal with bodily fluids and hazardous waste in communal area.
  3. The landlord meets its commitment to review the service charge for 2021/22, taking into account the suspension of services, and that it clearly advises the resident the outcome of the review and the new service charge.