Moat Homes Limited (202331887)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331887

Moat Homes Limited

30 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Issues with the cleaning of the communal bin store.
2. Issues with the floor insulation at the resident’s property.
3. Issues with the cold-water supply to the resident’s property.
This Service has considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a shared owner of the property and purchased 25 percent of the lease on 14 June 2018. The property is a 1-bedroom, ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association. It does not own the freehold to the building. The landlord’s relationship with the freeholder is governed by the superior lease. A managing agent has been appointed by the freeholder to carry out its contractual obligations in regard to the provision of services and repairs.
The evidence shows the resident reported issues with the cold-water supply shortly after moving into the property, and on 25 July 2018, raised a formal complaint to the landlord about the cold-water being excessively warm.
In March 2019 the resident reported to the landlord that the property was excessively cold. On 12 December 2019 the resident enquired to the landlord about the nature of the floor insulation at the property and was told the managing agent held no information about the floor insulation. The landlord said that if the resident had concerns, she could arrange an independent survey, which the resident did in February 2021.
The landlord was served with a Section 75 Enforcement Notice by the water authority on 28 October 2020 as the cold water supplied to the property was above 20 degrees. (The purpose of the notice was to ask that the water system was investigated and altered to ensure it remained at 20 degrees or below).
The resident told the landlord on 19 June 2022 that the managing agent had confirmed the heating issues at the property were due to an absence of thermal insulation in the floor. Thereafter, on 12 September 2022 the managing agent said it would investigate the floor insulation and make a ‘latent defects claim’ under the building warranty (‘the warranty’). On 30 November 2022 the managing agent told the landlord that the next step was to arrange an intrusive survey of the floor.
The resident applied to the First-tier tribunal on 3 July 2022 for a determination of liability to pay, and reasonableness of service charges for the service charge years 2018 to 2022 (inclusive). The resident subsequently withdrew her application in March 2023, having reached a settlement agreement with the landlord outside of the court process. Under the terms of the agreement, the landlord committed to:
1. Credit the resident with £2,475 to cover additional heating costs since she moved into the property.
2. Credit the resident with £1000 compensation.
3. Credit the resident’s account with a £30 monthly payment until the floor insulation issue was resolved.
4. Credit the resident’s account with £5 per month until the works to rectify the cold water were resolved.
5. Ensure the resident received a better service going forward.
The agreement also set out that the landlord:
1. Understood the cost of remedial works to the address the absence of floor insulation was to be covered by a building warranty claim. If the warranty claim was unsuccessful, the landlord would seek advice on pursuing the freeholder for any costs involved to rectify the issue.
2. Would hold monthly meetings with the managing agent and provide the resident with monthly email updates to ensure she was kept up to date with the progress of the cold water and insulation works, along with any other issues that were discussed.
3. Had received confirmation from the managing agent that from March 2023 the bins would be washed quarterly. The landlord would regularly monitor bin store cleanliness.
On 14, 16 and 28 March 2023 the landlord asked the managing agent for the schedule for the bin store cleaning. The managing agent responded (date of response unclear) that bin store would be cleaned in early April 2023 and that it would confirm the exact date soon.
On 19 April 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord as the bins had not been cleaned by the end of March 2023. The resident said the landlord had ignored her request for confirmation as to when the clean would take place. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 20 April 2023.
In an undated email, the landlord told the resident the managing agent had confirmed the bins would be cleaned on 27 April 2023 and the recycling bins the following week. It said it had requested a schedule of future quarterly cleans. The landlord said it would schedule a fortnightly check of ongoing issues at the building. The landlord said that compensation was not appropriate. The landlord said the complaint would remain open until it received an explanation for the delay and confirmation the clean had been completed.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint about the bin store on 9 May 2023.
The landlord provided what it described as “an initial stage 2 response” on 15 May 2023. The landlord apologised that the bin store was not cleaned on the dates the resident had been told. The landlord said it would meet with the managing agent on 17 May and would update the resident on 18 May 2023.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it understood the bins had now been cleaned. It said the next bin clean would take place on 17 August and the next recycling bin clean on 25 August 2023.The landlord said the managing agent had failed to arrange for the bins to be cleaned by the end of March 2023. The landlord offered £50compensationas the resident had to bring this to its attention.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord told the resident it did not have confirmation that the quarterly bin store cleans would take place as the managing agent had said it had arranged a 6-month contract and the next clean would take place in November 2023. The landlord said it was raising a formal complaint with the managing agent. The landlord said it had revised its compensation offer to £150 to reflect the cleaning not taking place on the specified date and resident having to chase for updates.
On 14 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord for an undertaking that the bin store would be cleaned in August 2023.
On 16 June 2023 the resident sent the landlord a report on the cold-water supply at the property. The report was commissioned by the managing agent and a copy had earlier been provided to the resident. In her email to the landlord, the resident said she had to ‘run’ the water for extended periods to bring the temperature down, meaning her water usage was high. The resident said the managing agent had informed her that an external water supply would not resolve this problem and it had therefore elected to pursue ‘option 2’. This Service has not been provided with a copy of the report and cannot elaborate on what that option entailed. The resident questioned the cost and the effectiveness of the options proposed. The resident said she expected to have a decent water supply without the risk of legionella. The resident said she would obtain a quote for the installation of a direct feed as the managing agent did not appear to be accepting the advice from the water company regarding the appropriate remedy.
On 20 June 2023 the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received a response to her previous email. The resident asked for an update on the cold-water supply and floor insulation. The landlord responded on 21 June 2023 and provided an update from its monthly meeting with the managing agent, noting:
1. The consultant engaged by the managing agent had identified 2 options to resolve the issue with the cold-water supply. The landlord said the managing agent had agreed to speak with the water company about the options. The consultant had advised that a dedicated independent feed would not resolve the issue. The landlord said that as the issue had been dragging on it would suggest to the managing agent that it proceed with option 2 in the expectation that it resolved the issue.
2. Intrusive tests to the flooring were scheduled for 5 June 2023 but did not take place as several properties were inaccessible. The landlord was chasing the managing agent for further test dates. Once the report was available it would be passed to the warranty provider.
3. The landlord raised a formal complaint about the bins to the managing agent on 15 June 2023. The landlord expected to receive a response by 4 July 2023 and would update the resident on this by 6 July 2023.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint about the handling of the issues with the floor insulation and cold-water supply.
On 6 July 2023 the resident asked the landlord to confirm that the managing agent would arrange quarterly bins cleans and that the landlord would pay for 2 of these cleans. The resident asked for a copy of the landlord’s formal complaint to the managing agent and a copy of the response. The landlord responded (date unclear) and said the managing agent had not included the cost of quarterly bin cleans in the 2023/24 budget. The managing agent therefore enacted what it felt was a compromise by arranging half-yearly bin cleans. The landlord said the managing agent was not prepared to change the schedule for 2023/24, therefore the landlord agreed to pay for the August and February bin store cleans. The landlord said it had received confirmation in writing from the managing agent that quarterly cleans would be in the 2024/25 budget. The landlord said it would not share the complaint correspondence but had received an apology. The landlord confirmed that it had reviewed the compensation offered and increased the amount to £200.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 13 July 2023, noting:
1. The managing agent would contact the resident by 19 July 2023 to arrange a survey. The survey report would be shared with the landlord and resident, and the managing agent would then carry out the necessary remedial work.
2. The managing agent was responsible for the maintenance of the block and the landlord would ensure the issues the resident reported were rectified.
3. The resident had made a separate complaint about the bins at the block.
The resident responded on 14 July 2023 and queried why the managing agent needed to send a surveyor to her property again. The resident asked the landlord who would pay for the remedial work to the floor. The resident asked the landlord to account for the delays with progressing the issue.
In an undated email, the landlord communicated the resident’s comments to the managing agent. The resident asked why the managing agent was sending surveyors again when it had previously said the warranty provider needed to attend. The resident said she had spent months waiting for updates on the understanding that the warranty provider needed to do its own investigation. The resident expressed frustration that if the warranty provider was not involved, then the wait was unnecessary.
On 17 July 2023 the landlord asked the managing agent to contact the resident that day.
On 27 July 2023 the managing agent told the resident a second intrusive survey had confirmed that there was no floor insulation in her property. The managing agent said the findings had been sent to the warranty provider and the resident and landlord would be updated as information became available.
The resident raised a stage 2 complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023. The resident said the landlord had failed to answer her questions and again enquired why a further surveyor’s visit had been required. She said that contrary to the stage 1 response, the managing agent had not contacted her to arrange for a surveyor to attend on 19 July 2023. The resident said the communications about the warranty were confused. She said she had used all her annual leave because of the issues and asked that the compensation be reviewed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 4, 8 and 9 August 2023 as she had not received an acknowledgement of her complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 9 August 2023. On the same day, the resident told the landlord that contrary to the landlord’s previous email the bin clean did not take place on 3 August 2023.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord responded and said it was surprised to receive the resident’s email as the managing agent had said the bin clean took place. The landlord asked the resident to check the photos provided by the managing agent to evidence the clean. The landlord said the next clean would take place on 9 September 2023.
In a meeting with the landlord on 16 August 2023 the managing agent confirmed the lack of floor insulation was a building construction defect and should be covered by the warranty. The managing agent provided a copy of the report on the cold-water supply and said it had raised a works order to reroute the supply and was confident this would resolve the issue.
On 21 September 2023 the landlord asked the managing agent if the works to the cold-water supply had resolved the issues. The managing agent confirmed on 22 September 2023 that the works were complete. It said the water temperature would be monitored and the water company would test the supply.
On 27 October 2023 the water company confirmed the water temperature remained higher than expected and that it had a duty to inform the relevant authority of a potential legionella risk. On 1 November 2023 the landlord queried the next steps with the managing agent. In response (date unknown), the managing agent said the next steps were unclear and it would need to speak with specialists.
The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 29 September 2023, noting:
1. The resident told the landlord in June 2023 that the service provided by the managing agent remained poor and that works to remedy the lack of insulation and correct the cold-water temperature had not been carried out. The landlord apologised for the delay. It said that it had escalated the issues internally to monitor the works and ensure a swift resolution.
2. The work to install floor insulation was being done under the building warranty. The landlord apologised that the resident had to provide access for additional, duplicate inspection visits. The landlord agreed this was excessive and said it had asked for the work to be progressed and future disruption to be minimised. The landlord said it would update the resident as it received progress reports from the managing agent.
3. The resident had said the managing agent had not attended to take the water temperature, however, the resident’s measurements showed an average temperature of 20 degrees. To identify a long-term solution and ensure the supply did not pose any risk to health, the landlord’s water hygiene specialist would attend the property on 13 October 2024.
4. The landlord apologised that communications from it and the managing agent had been irregular and confusing. The landlord said it held monthly meetings with the managing agent. It said it would find and action a solution to the water temperature issue. It said it would ask for service charges for all residents to be adjusted to make sure they were appropriate and to ensure residents were not charged for works that were inadequate. It committed to monitor the performance of the managing agent and consider performance management measures. It said it would contact the resident regularly.
5. The landlord apologised that the complaint response was late, which it said was because it wanted to escalate the water issue to a senior member of staff. The landlord awarded £100 compensation in recognition of the delayed response.

Events after completion of the internal complaints process

On 12 October 2023 the landlord confirmed an appointment for water testing at the resident’s property to take place on 9 November 2023.
On 3 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident with instructions to flush the water at the property from the cold-water outlets for at least 3 minutes each day and said the landlord would arrange weekly water testing.
On 9 November 2023 the resident emailed the landlord summarising the outstanding issues. The resident said the settlement agreement stated that in the event of the warranty claim being unsuccessful, the landlord would seek legal advice in pursuing the freeholder for funds to resolve the problem. The resident asked the landlord to confirm the matter was now with its solicitors as she had not received an update.
On 17 November 2023 the landlord told the resident it recognised it should have escalated the issues much sooner. The landlord said it had decided to instigate legal proceedings against the managing agent due to a lack of progress.
On 5 February 2024 the resident said that although she had been told the landlord was seeking legal advice in relation to the management agent, she had not received any updates.
The landlord met with the managing agent on 13 February 2024 and provided an email update to the resident thereafter. The landlord said that testing of the cold-water supply to the resident’s property had been carried out over the previous 8 weeks. The results were within guidelines and the landlord would therefore reduce the frequency of testing. The landlord said the managing agent was sourcing contractors to carry out works to resolve the issues with the cold-water supply and floor insulation. Once the landlord received schedule of works from the manging agent it would share these with the resident.
On 15 March 2024 the landlord told the resident it was seeking legal advice to ensure action was taken by the managing agent to resolve the outstanding issues.
On 8 May 2024 the landlord issued a letter of claim to the freeholder in relation to the water temperature, floor insulation issues and other issues. At the time of this report the issues remain unresolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

The evidence shows that the resident first reported issues with the cold-water supply in July 2018 and reported that the property was excessively cold in March 2019. In March 2023 the resident and landlord agreed how they would move to a resolution of these (and other issues). The resident subsequently raised a stage 1 complaint about the cleaning of the bin store on 19 April 2023. The resident raised a separate complaint about the floor insulation and the cold-water supply on 20 June 2023. In the interest of efficiency and expediency this investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of both complaints.

Issues with communal bin store

The resident raised a complaint on 9 May 2023 that the bins were not cleaned, and the landlord had ignored her enquiry about when cleaning would take place. Schedule 4 of the superior lease states that the freeholder will provide (or procure via a managing company) the building and estate services. The landlord responded on 15 May and said it would provide the resident with an update by 18 May 2023. There is no evidence the landlord provided an update prior to this date.
On 26 May 2023 the landlord told the resident it understood the bins had now been cleaned. The settlement agreement stated the landlord would monitor the cleanliness of the bin store. It was unreasonable that the resident had to flag to the landlord that cleaning had not taken place and that the landlord failed to monitor the cleanliness.
On 9 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that it did not have confirmation that the quarterly bin store cleans would take place. This was contrary to the settlement agreement, and as such it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have accounted for this, however, it did not provide an explanation. The resident then asked for confirmation the bin store would be cleaned in August and that quarterly cleans would be arranged. The landlord responded on 6 July 2023 and said the managing agent had not arranged for the March 2023 clean to take place and had not accounted for the cleans in the 2023/24 budget. As a compromise, the landlord had agreed to fund 2 of the 4 cleans, prior to the full cleaning schedule being included in the 2024/25 budget. In making up the shortfall, the landlord acted reasonably by seeking a compromise solution and communicating this arrangement to the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy set out discretionary payments between £50 and £150 for service failures. The landlord awarded £200, which reflected the time and trouble spent by the resident in seeking to resolve the service failure as well as the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to adhere to the settlement agreement.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord acted inappropriately in not adhering to the settlement agreement and failing to monitor the cleanliness of the bin store. The landlord did, however, agree a compromise with the managing agent that ensured the quarterly cleans went ahead. The landlord acknowledged its failings, and the compensation offer was commensurate with its failings and in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. As a result, the Ombudsman finds there was reasonable redress in this case.

Issues with the floor insulation at the resident’s property

Under the terms of the lease, the resident is responsible for repairs to the property except in respect of damage on risks insured (by the freeholder) under Schedule 6 of the superior lease. This repair obligation could potentially include latent defects (building construction or design defects that are not apparent from inspection). However, under the terms of the settlement agreement, the landlord said its understanding was that remedial works would be covered by the building warranty and were therefore not the responsibility of the resident. It also said that should a warranty claim be unsuccessful, it would seek advice on pursuing the freeholder for the costs to rectify the issue.
The settlement agreement also set out the landlord’s commitment to ensure the resident received a better service going forward and to hold monthly meetings with the managing agent to progress matters, including a solution to the issues with the floor insulation. This investigation will consider the landlord’s handling of the floor insulation matter after the settlement agreement came into effect on 1 March 2023.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint as she had not received anyof the promised updates from the landlord. In the period between 1 March and 1June 2023 there is no evidence that the landlord met with the managing agent and provided an email update to the resident. The landlord acted inappropriately in not adhering to the terms of the settlement agreement. The absence of meetings and resultant updates was not only a communications failure but also meant that the landlord was unable to monitor the managing agent’s progress to resolve the issue.
Following the resident’s stage 1 complaint the landlord provided an update and said the managing agent had scheduled tests, but these did not go ahead. It subsequently said the managing agent would contact the resident to arrange a survey. The resident then queried why this was necessary and asked the landlord why the warranty provider had not yet been involved. The evidence does not show the resident received a response to her queries about the investigation, the delay or who would pay for the repairs.
Given the landlord stated in the settlement agreement that it understood the necessary remedial works to be covered by the warranty, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have sought to confirm this understanding as a matter of urgency. However, prior to being chased by the resident on 14 July 2023, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the managing agent about the warranty.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it would update the resident as it received reports from the managing agent. This Service recognises that the warranty lay with the freeholder, and that the landlord was not sighted on the communications between the managing agent and the warranty provider. However, the landlord had committed to ensuring the resident received an improved service, and it is reasonable to expect it to have proactively sought to do this. Instead, it demonstrated little urgency or initiative in its actions to make things better for the resident. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents (March 2022), is clear that landlords should ensure that in responding to service (and repair) issues landlords should make use of clear action plans and monitor the performance of managing agents against these. Although the landlord’s communication to the resident did refer to performance management, there is no evidence that the landlord had a clear plan to deliver this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2023 and referred to the landlord’s commitment to seek advice if the floor insulation was not covered by the warranty. The landlord responded on 17 November 2023 and said it had decided to instigate legal proceedings. The evidence shows the landlord did not, however, instruct a solicitor until February 2024, and only after the resident had chased the landlord for an update. If the landlord was aware of issues that would delay matters, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have updated the resident accordingly. Instead, the landlord failed to act, and did not communicate with the resident until she chased it for an update.
When there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (an apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. In its stage 2 response the landlord did not apologise for its handling of the issues with the floor insulation, nor did it offer any compensation.
In summary, the landlord failed to adhere to the commitments it made in the settlement agreement. The landlord did not hold monthly meetings and provide email updates to the resident. The landlord did not act in a timely or proactive manner, meaning the resident had to chase for updates and information. This suggests the landlord did not fulfil its commitment to ensuring the resident received a better service. As a result of these failings there was maladministration in this case. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Issues with the cold-water supply

The covenants of the head-lease require the freeholder to maintain the cold-water installations in the block. As set-out previously, under the terms of the settlement agreement the landlord committed to meet monthly with the managing agent to resolve issues, including the temperature of the cold-water supply and to provide email updates to the resident.
The evidence shows that the landlord was aware that a cold-water supply above 20 degrees was a potential hazard to health. This Service would expect the landlord to adhere to its commitments in the settlement agreement, and to have held monthly meetings with the managing agent, advocated for a timely solution and updatedthe resident. However, as set out previously there is no evidence that between March and June 2023 the landlord did so.
On 16 June 2023 the resident raised concerns to the landlord that the managing agent appeared to be ignoring the advice from the water company and that its proposed solution would be ineffective. The landlord responded on 21 June 2023 with an update from a monthly meeting with the landlord, noting a consultant engaged by the landlord had identified 2 possible solutions and the landlord would suggest to the managing agent that it proceeded with the ‘second option’ in the expectation that it resolved the issue. The landlord’s response to the resident did not engage with the issue she raised, which was that she doubted the efficacy of the proposed solution. The landlord acted unreasonably, as rather than engage with the resident’s concerns or raise them at the meeting with the managing agent, it proposed the managing agent press ahead regardless.
According to the evidence, the landlord next engaged with the managing agent about the water supply temperature on 21 September 2023, when it enquired whether the works had resolved the issues. Thereafter, the landlord’s stage 2 response stated the issue was unresolved and that it would attend the property to identify a long-term solution and monitor the supply. The landlord subsequently instigated water quality monitoring. This was a reasonable response to the managing agent’s failure to resolve the issue. In view of the dangers of a too-warm cold-water supply, it was reasonable of the landlord to instigate monitoring, however, it is unclear why this was not put in place much earlier, as the resident had reported excess temperatures for several years.
The landlord did not, however, set out a clear plan of action to resolve the issue. In its stage 2 complaint response it said it would monitor the performance of the managing agent and consider performance management measures. The landlord’s response was unclear and unhelpful. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have explained what performance management measures it would instigate and how it would decide if, or when these were necessary. Instead, the resident received no concrete information on how the landlord would hold the managing agent to account on her behalf.
Given the potential health risk posed by the cold-water supply, it is reasonable to expect the issue to have been included on the landlord’s risk register and progress towards a resolution to have been overseen by a senior manager. The landlord acted unreasonably in not having risk monitoring in place after the settlement agreement and failing to have a clear escalation path in the event of the managing agent not affecting a timely resolution.
In summary, the landlord failed to adhere to the terms of the settlement agreement, did not hold regular monthly meetings with the managing agent and failed to provide email updates to the resident. Despite the landlord being aware of the potential risks to health, it displayed no urgency in seeking information or progress updates from the landlord. While its response to the failure of the works was reasonable, it is unclear why the landlord did not instigate water monitoring sooner. As a result of these failings there was maladministration in this case. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to pay the resident £450 compensation for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a stage 1 complaint to the landlord on 19 April 2023. The resident said that contrary to the terms of the settlement agreement the bin store was not cleaned before the end of March 2023, and the landlord had ignored the resident’s enquiries about the cleaning schedule. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint on 20 April 2023. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy that stated it would provide an acknowledgement within 5 working days.
It is unclear when the landlord provided a stage 1 response, however, the evidence shows that it was before 27 April 2023. This was in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, which states a response should be provided within 10 working days.
Paragraph 5.8 of the version of the Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in operation at the time (April 2022), sets out the information that a stage 1 complaint response must include. Contrary to paragraph 5.8 of the Code, the landlord’s response did not include the complaint stage, the complaint definition, the complaint decision, or details of how to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord acted inappropriately in not communicating this information to the resident. The absence of this information was a communication failure, and it was unreasonable that the resident was required to navigate the process without this information.
On 9 May 2023 the resident raised a stage 2 complaint about the cleaning of the bin store. The landlord provided “an initial stage 2 response” on 15 May 2023. There is no provision in the Code for an “initial” complaint response. If the landlord was acknowledging the resident’s escalation request or providing an update it should have labelled its communication accordingly. It was inappropriate of the landlord to provide an “initial response” and unreasonable that the resident was again required to navigate a process that was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord provided a further response on 9 June 2023 and offered the resident £150 compensation. In a subsequent response on 6 July 2023 the landlord set out a resolution to the issue and said that it had reviewed the compensation offer and increased it to £200. The landlord acted inappropriately in providing 2 further stage 2 responses. Neither of these responses were compliant with paragraph 5.16 of the Code, which set out the information required in the stage 2 response.
This Service would expect the landlord to identify and account for failings in its complaint handling. In its final response the landlord acted unreasonably in failing to identify or address its failings.
On 20 June 2023 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint about the handling of the floor insulation and cold-water supply in her property. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 29 June 2023. The landlord acted inappropriately in failing to acknowledge the complaint within the 5 working days set out in its complaints policy and instead providing an acknowledgement in 8 working days.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 13 July 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy required it to provide a response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and the landlord responded in 11 working days. The response said the managing agent would contact the resident to arrange a survey and the landlord would ensure the issues the resident reported were rectified. It was reasonable to expect the landlord’s response to have set out how a resolution would be affected and a timeline for this. If there were ‘unknowns’ or issues outside of the landlord’s control, these should have been identified, together with the measures it would take to manage these risks.
The resident raised these and other questions to the landlord on 14 July 2023 and raised a stage 2 complaint on 27 July 2023. The resident said the landlord had failed to respond to her questions regarding its stage 1 response and the communications regarding the warranty were confused. The resident contacted the landlord on 4, 8, 9 August 2023 as she had not received a complaint acknowledgement and the landlord then acknowledged the receipt of the complaint on 9 August 2023, which was 5 working days beyond its target response time.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 29 September 2023. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will provide a stage 2 response in 20 working days, although on occasions it may need to extend this timeline. The landlord provided a stage 2 response in 38 working days. The landlord acted reasonably in providing the resident with prior notice of the delay, however, it acted contrary to its own policy, which stated that any delay should not exceed 10 working days. The landlord awarded £100 compensation in recognition of the delay.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did address the issues the resident had raised and set out its understanding that the work to the floor insulation was covered by the warranty. The response recognised that communication from itself and the managing agent had been inadequate. The landlord committed to finding a solution to the water supply issue and to monitoring the performance of the managing agent. It was, however, reasonable to have expected the landlord to have set out detail on the proposed resolution. It was also reasonable to have expected the landlord to have referenced the settlement agreement and to have explained how its actions correlated with its prior commitment to ensure the resident received an improved service. The absence of this information meant that the landlord’s complaint response was inadequate and contributed to a further deterioration in the resident’s confidence that it could affect a resolution to the issues or implement the commitments it made in the settlement agreement.
The landlord did not comply with the Code. It did not communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord’s complaint responses did not demonstrate that it had an effective and robust plan in place to deliver the commitments it made in the settlement agreement. The compensation awarded to the resident was not commensurate with the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to use the complaints process to manage and resolve the ongoing issues the resident was experiencing. As a result of these failings, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in this case. Orders are therefore made for the landlord to pay the resident £400 compensation for the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of issues with the cleaning of the bin store.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of issues with the floor insulation in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of issues with the cold-water supply to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident, in writing, for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1300 compensation. This comprises:
  1. £450 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s handling of issues with the floor insulation.
  2. £450 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s handling of issues with the cold-water supply.
  3. £400 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the failings in the landlord’s complaint handling.

The compensation should be paid in addition to any other awards made by the landlord and should be paid directly to the resident and not to a rent or service charge account.

In accordance with paragraph 54g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Draft a policy and procedure for working with freeholders and managing agents. Both the policy and procedure should be compliant with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents (March 2022). The landlord should provide a copy of the policy, procedure, together with a self-assessment against the spotlight report to this Service. The policy and procedure should be published on the landlord’s website.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with the timescales set out above.