Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202016536)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202016536

Yorkshire Housing Limited

22 October 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 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:
    1. Response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
    2. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a property managed by the landlord, a housing association.
  2. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord shall provide services in connection with the property set out in an attached schedule for which the resident shall pay a service charge.
  3. The landlord’s grounds maintenance specification for 2019-2022 says that litter and debris “shall be swept, blown, picked, collected and removed from all areas at each visit. Use of machinery such as mowers for this purpose is not acceptable; all litter must be removed prior to commencing cutting of grassed areas.”
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy in use at the relevant time had a two stage process. The policy said that landlord would issue an acknowledgement within 2 working days and aim to respond to all stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt. No response time was set out for a stage two complaint.
  5. In September 2020 the resident received a letter from the landlord informing him of an increase in service charge for the year 2020-21. The increase included a weekly increase for “estate services” from £2.22 per week to £4.11 per week.
  6. On 10 October 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord concerning services provided by the landlord in return for the service charge. The resident asked the landlord to explain what services were included in the following charges: “estate services” and “social provisions”. The resident also asked the landlord why he was paying service charges for CCTV maintenance and provision when he said that the CCTV cameras at the premises hadn’t worked in over ten years.
  7. On 18 November 2020 the landlord sent its stage one complaint response. The landlord said that it had reduced the service charges where it hadn’t provided the services due to the Covid 19 pandemic lockdown. It said that the services had restarted on 11 May 2020, so it had reduced the charge for the year 2020-21 based on not paying for April 2020. In its response the landlord also explained that “estate services” included litter picking, pulling out the bins for the council to empty, ensuring bin stores are clean, and handing out of key fobs. The landlord also said that “social provisions” included lift equipment, controlled entry and electric gate provision. The landlord said that it would visit the estate to identify when the problem with the CCTV had started.
  8. On 24 November 2020 the resident requested an escalation of his complaint. He noted that the landlord had said that “estate services” covered litter picking, ensuring bin stores are clean, handing out key fobs and bins being taken out for the local authority to empty. However, he said that the only one of those services that had been provided was the taking out of the bins. The resident also:
    1. Attached photographs taken that day from which he said the landlord could see that there had been no litter picking on the estate for over 3 years since the caretaker had left.
    2. Said that bins were not put back in the “store area they are in the car parking area and worst of all the bin stores area is full of household waste attracting rats, no wonder all tenants were sent a letter warning them of rats in the area, this is not just a one off it’s been this way for years.”
    3. Said that residents were paying a weekly charge for a key fob and therefore wanted to know why, when he had enquired about getting another key fob, he was told that it would cost him £15.
    4. Said that the landlord’s offer to inspect the CCTV would only identify that it is not working at the time of the inspection and not that it had not worked for over 10 years.
  9. The landlord sent its stage two complaint response to the resident on 18 December 2020.
  10. In its stage two complaint response the landlord referred to the photographs taken by the resident on 24 November 2020 and said that:
    1. It had photographic evidence from 26 November 2020 that showed the bin store to be clean and tidy following its estates team attending the premises on the morning of the 25 November 2020 to clear dumped rubbish.
    2. On 18 November 2020 the caretaker had pulled out the bins for the local authority to empty. There was excessive fly tipping in the bin sheds and the caretaker had raised a job for the landlord to clear the fly tipping.
    3. After the bins were emptied, the caretaker was unable to put the bins back in the bin store because of the amount of rubbish in the bin store. The caretaker had chosen to leave the bins in the car park for use and not to throw the fly tipping in them because putting the fly tipping in the bins would have filled the bins and the same situation would then have happened again.
    4. There had been a number of bin collections missed by the local authority. The landlord said that it would raise this with the local authority to encourage a consistent bin emptying service to stop issues arising in the future.
  11. In its stage two complaint response the landlord also said that:
    1. Between January 2020 and November 2020, it had cleared additional rubbish, including fridges at a cost of £632.19 which it had paid and not passed onto residents via the service charge.
    2. Litter picking was carried out once a week following the bins being emptied.
    3. When an electric entry system is installed, or a tenancy starts, residents are given a key fob. The service charge then pays for the maintenance and future renewal of the security system. If a resident requires any additional or replacement fobs then a £15 charge is made.
    4. The landlord had visited the premises and confirmed the CCTV was working. It had reviewed its repairs system and could only find three repair jobs over the last ten years, one of which had been cancelled and two had been completed.
    5. It had “been assured through the provision of evidence” that whilst the CCTV footage was not constantly monitored, should an incident occur, the landlord could download the footage to provide evidence and investigate incidents happening in that location.
    6. The resident had mentioned, in discussing the complaint with the landlord, that services had deteriorated since the on-site caretaker role had changed. The landlord said that it could appreciate how the change may have altered the resident’s perception of the services. It gave the resident its service manager’s telephone number so that any caretaking/ground maintenance/ litter picking issues could be flagged and looked into.
  12. The landlord’s stage two complaint response dated 24 November 2020 was its final reasons to the complaint, confirming that its internal complaints process had been exhausted.

Assessment and findings

  1. In the course of this investigation the resident has informed this Service that on a number of occasions he has not been able to receive an answer on the telephone number provided for the landlord’s service manager in the landlord’s final response to the complaint. The Ombudsman’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint in October 2020, and which was the subject of the landlord’s final response on 24 November 2020. If the resident wishes to complain about matters that have occurred since 24 November 2020, he will need to make a new formal complaint to the landlord.
  2. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the services provided by the landlord in return for the service charge.

  1. In responding to the resident’s complaint that the landlord was not providing the following services: litter picking and ensuring the bin stores are clean, the landlord said that the litter picking was done once a week and attached a photograph showing that the bin store had been clean on 26 November 2020.
  2. Whilst the landlord provided evidence to the resident that the bin store was clean on 26 November 2020 it did not provide evidence that the bin store had been cleaned regularly, or that the litter picking had been carried out weekly. Neither has the landlord provided this Service with details of what evidence it was relying upon to provide this response to the resident.
  3. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint that it was not providing the litter picking and bin store cleaning services was not fair and reasonable as it failed to provide sufficient evidence that the services had been carried out as required and this represents a service failure.
  4. In its stage two complaint response to the resident’s enquiries concerning the key fob the landlord said that the service charge paid for the maintenance and future renewal of the security system, rather than for a replacement key fob. It is reasonable for a landlord to include a charge for maintaining a security entrance system in a service charge, and to charge residents for additional key fobs. However, the landlord’s response to this aspect of the complaint was not reasonable as the landlord did not answer the resident’s query as to what aspect of the “estate charge” related to key fobs. Instead, the landlord said that it charged for the maintenance of the security entrance system. However, the landlord had informed the resident in its stage one response that the maintenance for the security entrance system was part of the “social provisions” charge, not the “estate charge”.
  5. In its stage two response to the resident’s concerns about what CCTV service it was providing the landlord said that it had visited the premises and confirmed that the CCTV was working. It also said that it had reviewed its repairs system and could only find three repair jobs for the CCTV over the last ten years, one of which had been cancelled and two had been completed. This was a reasonable response to the resident’s query, detailing the evidence it was relying upon to provide its response.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen copies of the following that it requested from the landlord as part of this investigation:
    1. A complete copy of the tenancy agreement including the schedule setting out what services the landlord will provide for which the resident shall pay a service charge (see paragraph 3 above).
    2. Details of the grounds maintenance and caretaking services the resident is paying for within their service charge.
    3. Copies of correspondence and call notes between the landlord and any relevant third parties, for example, contractors employed to provide services.
    4. Details of any actions the landlord has taken to investigate the resident’s concerns, to include:
      1. Interviews with contractors;
      2. Copies of timesheets obtained by the landlord;
      3. Visits to the site to check if scheduled works have taken place.
  7. This is unsatisfactory and has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to thoroughly investigate the repair service the landlord provided the resident, specifically:
    1. What services the landlord was obliged to provide in return for the service charge in accordance with the schedule attached to the tenancy agreement.
    2. What services relating to the litter picking, cleaning of the bin stores and maintenance of the CCTV cameras were provided by the landlord.
    3. What evidence the landlord considered in investigating the resident’s complaint.
  8. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, services provided, inspections and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes concerning the provision of services in return for service charges are not operating effectively. This, together with the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries, represents a service failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 18 November 2020, 27 working days after the resident made his complaint and 17 working days outside the 10-working day timescale set out in its complaints policy (see paragraph 5 above). There is also no evidence that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within two working days as set out in its complaints policy.
  2. Therefore, the landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate and in breach of its policy obligations.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
    2. Complaints handling.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
  2. The landlord’s complaints handling showed inappropriate delay.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to pay the resident total compensation of £150 made up as follows:
    1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s highlighted failures in responding to the resident’s service charge enquiries.
    2. £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaints handling.
  2. The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of the determination to:
    1. carry out a management review of its record keeping practices to ensure that appropriate records are maintained to demonstrate what grounds maintenance and caretaking services are provided to residents in return for service charges, including services provided by contractors.
    2. provide this Service with a summary of the review setting out what went wrong and the steps it will be taking to ensure that the failures are not repeated.

 

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord contact the resident to discuss how he can report concerns to the landlord about any caretaking/ground maintenance/ litter picking issues and how these will be looked into by the landlord.