Watford Community Housing Trust (202414348)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a newly built block. The resident’s wife has at times contacted the landlord on his behalf. For readability, we have referred to her as the resident throughout. He reported problems with the property within the first 2 years of its completion. The resident told the landlord that the property was excessively cold. He was also concerned about the quality and frequency of cleaning and maintenance of communal areas.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns that the property was cold and the heating system was not working properly.
   2. Cleaning and maintenance of communal areas.
   3. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
   4. The associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns that the property was cold and the heating system was not working properly.
   2. The associated complaint.
4. We found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of cleaning and maintenance of communal areas.
5. We found service failure by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns that the property was cold and the heating system was not working properly. It was fair, took his concerns seriously, took reasonable steps to investigate and managed the responses it received from its contractor. It provided timely responses to the resident throughout.
7. The landlord appropriately apologised for its cleaning failures prior to his complaint in March 2024. It took reasonable steps to improve its cleaning schedule and resolve communal repairs.
8. The landlord did not follow its ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports that people were misusing the communal areas. It acknowledged his concerns in its complaint responses but did not record any follow up regarding the agreed actions.
9. The landlord’s complaint responses complied with our Complaint Handling Code.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

10. The landlord must look at the condition of its properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding or minimising potential hazards. Excess cold is a potential category 1 hazard within the scope of HHSRS. The landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS. This includes conducting additional monitoring of a property where it has identified potential hazards.
11. The landlord’s repair policy says that it aims to complete repairs within 20 working days of the initial report. As the property was a new build home, it would manage latent defects through the relevant guarantees by its property services team. It would inform residents with probable timescales relevant to the defect.
12. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported issues with excess cold on 15 January 2024. It inspected the property 22 working days later. This was a reasonable response and broadly compliant with the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy.
13. The resident reiterated his concerns in his complaint on 7 March 2024. He said the property was excessively cold and he raised this the year before. He was running additional heaters and closing doors to get the flat to a bearable temperature. The landlord used its stage 1 response on 22 March 2024 to address the resident’s concerns. It did not solely rely on the outcome of the February 2024 inspection by its contractor which said the heating was functioning correctly. Instead, it appropriately agreed to conduct further investigations.
14. The landlord recognised that there was an issue with the front door, which it agreed to repair in April 2024. It used its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024 to effectively address each of the resident’s concerns. It continued to be resolution focused and provided further detail on the actions it had taken to assess the heating in the property. It appropriately offered to provide additional monitoring until it had completed the surveys in April 2024. It fairly assessed the reports made by the resident and showed that it took his concerns seriously. It was reasonable to provide the resident an opportunity to evidence his increased energy usage for further consideration.
15. The landlord’s records show that it followed through with its commitments to conduct further investigation into the excess cold and heating in 2024. In April 2024, it checked the resident’s heating panels, towel rail, and water cylinder. It conducted the external thermal imaging. In its follow up response in May 2024, it apologised for a delay conducting the internal thermal imaging because it needed a new camera. It was positive that it offered £40 compensation for this delay. It then continued to provide updates regularly between April and September 2024. Although this was across a long period, some of the investigations were weather dependent which was unavoidable.
16. The landlord reviewed the resident’s energy consumption in May 2024, which showed he was using slightly more than the average for his property type. It was reasonable for the landlord to continue to pursue the heating and insulation surveys in view of the information provided by the resident.
17. On 3 September 2024, the landlord appropriately shared the findings of its expert surveys with the resident. It was reasonable to arrange a meeting with the residents of the block to address the outcome of the surveys and its timetable to resolve the issues. It also recognised that there were issues with the front doors and agreed to replace them with a different product. We understand that the landlord has encountered difficulties in obtaining suitable replacement doors after it decided they needed renewal. It has apparently offered goodwill payments accordingly. As those events occurred after the end of the landlord’s complaints process, we have not assessed those decisions through this investigation.
18. Overall, we found no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns that the property was cold and the heating system was not working properly. Although the landlord later found a fault with the insulation, it responded promptly to the resident’s concerns throughout the timeline. It reasonably investigated his concerns that the heating was inefficient. It appropriately checked the heating system, kept him informed of progress, and shared the outcome of its investigations once it had them. It was resolution-focused for the landlord to maintain the actions it committed to in its stage 2 response. We recognise that the resident took considerable time and trouble allowing access to his home for inspections and may have experienced increased energy costs. We understand that the landlord has made a goodwill payment offer to the resident. It should re-offer this to him.

19. The resident reported issues with the cleanliness of the block to the landlord in October 2023 and February 2024 before his complaint in March 2024. The landlord agreed to conduct an estate inspection in October 2023 but did not record a response to his reports in February 2024. This was a failing and caused the resident some additional time and trouble pursuing his complaints.
20. The landlord used its stage 1 response in March 2024 to effectively address the resident’s concerns. It appropriately apologised for the areas that its contractor had missed and increased its oversight of the service. It gave a reasonable explanation for the issues with refuse collection and how it had sought to address these with the council. It gave a detailed update regarding a damaged communal door and its plan to complete the repairs.
21. The landlord continued to consider the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response in April 2024. It appropriately addressed a report of mould in the communal area and shared its plan to resolve the issue. Its decision to assign a named officer to keep the resident advised on progress of the communal repairs was positive. It appropriately apologised for the failure to provide an adequate cleaning service to that point. It took reasonable steps to address the issues with the bin store by arranging removal of discarded items. It also provided a detailed action plan to resolve the communal repairs.
22. The landlord continued to provide updates to the resident in 2024. In its update letter in May 2024, the landlord shared its progress on the agreed actions. It recorded that it had addressed the cleaning schedule with its contractor and ensured it did all weekly cleaning in accordance with requirements. It increased its direct supervision from 2 to 3 visits per week from its estates team and included an annual deep clean of the bin store. Its responses were fair and showed the landlord sought to resolve the issues raised by the resident.
23. We found the landlord made a reasonable offer of redress in its handling of cleaning and maintenance of communal areas. Although it did not fully address the initial delay in its responses, it was resolution focused and provided clear timely updates to the resident. It appropriately apologised for the service failures and took reasonable steps to improve its service. It took responsibility for the issues with the cleanliness in the block and increased its oversight of its contractors.

24. The landlord’s antisocial behaviour policy uses the ASB Crime and Policing Act 2014 definition of ASB. This says that ASB can include conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person. Unknown individuals gaining access to, and damaging, communal areas is likely to cause a nuisance or annoyance to the residents in the block. It is reasonable to determine that the behaviour reported by the resident constitutes ASB.
25. The landlord’s ASB policy also says that it will manage cases of ASB according to 5 key steps. These include report, investigate, action, monitor, and close.
26. The resident raised concerns about third parties accessing the block in his complaint on 7 March 2024. He said that he had raised issues previously in meetings and the landlord had told him it would provide a mobile camera for surveillance. We have found no evidence that the landlord proposed to use a mobile camera in its records.
27. The landlord did not record the resident’s report as an ASB case. It did not note any assessment of risk, or if it had considered a partnership response to the resident’s concerns. This was a failing by the landlord.
28. The landlord did address some of the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response in March 2024. It gave reasonable advice on reporting criminal offences to the police. It explained why it had not provided a mobile camera but that it would continue to monitor the situation. However, its response was vague. It did not detail how it would investigate, action, or monitor his report.
29. The landlord continued to address the concerns in its stage 2 response on 12 April 2024. It said that it passed the issue to its ASB team and agreed to consider physical improvements to the block to prevent non-residents climbing into the access walkway. This was a fair response. Had it followed through with these actions, this may have been reasonable means to resolve his complaint. However, it did not record any update regarding these issues in its later communication and did not close the resident’s report according to its ASB policy. It missed the opportunity to demonstrate whether it had followed through with these actions and if there were any physical improvements it could make to prevent the misuse of its communal areas.
30. We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. Although there was no evidence the resident continued to report new incidents, the landlord agreed to pass concerns to its ASB team in its stage 2 response. It did not show that it followed its own ASB policy when responding to the resident’s reports. It did not record any follow on actions or if it communicated these to the resident. It must pay the resident £50 compensation which reflects our Guidance on Remedies for a failure that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or put right. It must provide the resident details of its current position and actions it has taken to prevent further incidents of ASB.

31. The landlord’s complaint handling policy is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code. It says that it aims to acknowledge and log complaints within 1 working day. It will issue a response at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.
32. The resident complained on 7 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged the complaint 2 working days later. Although this was slightly outside the 1 working day in the landlord’s policy, it was within the 5 working days we accept in our Complaint Handling Code. It then issued its stage 1 response 9 working days later, on 22 March 2024. This was within the timescales provided for in its policy.
33. The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 3 April 2024. The landlord acknowledged his request the same day. It issued its stage 2 response 7 working days later, on 12 April 2024. Its acknowledgement and response were issued within the timescales of its policy.
34. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. Its responses were broadly compliant with its complaint handling policy and in line with our Complaint Handling Code.

Learning

35. The landlord demonstrated a positive approach by using its complaint responses to establish and agree actions with the resident. It should maintain and strengthen this practice to ensure accountability in resolving issues.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

36. The landlord did not follow its policy and procedures when responding to reports of ASB. While the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses, it did not show that it followed through with agreed actions. It should follow through on commitments it makes in its complaint responses.

Communication

37. The landlord should make sure that it responds to residents and attends appointments in accordance with its policies and procedures. Where delays occur, it must provide timely updates to residents, explaining the reasons and setting clear expectations for next steps.
38. From April 2024 onwards, the landlord improved its communication by providing appropriate updates to the resident regarding repairs and maintenance. This positive practice should be embedded as standard to maintain trust and clarity.