Bromford Housing Group Limited (202224073)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224073

Bromford Housing Group Limited

30 October 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water charges and the reported delay in receiving the utility statements.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the electricity meter for his property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the lighting in the corridors.
4. The resident’s concerns about the liability for future service charges relating to communal repairs.
5. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The resident’s concerns about the liability for future service charges relating to communal repairs.
The resident advised the landlord on 9 January 2024 that he was concerned about the financing of various repairs that he said dated back to the construction of the building. Paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. This Service cannot issue a binding decision about a resident’s liability to pay rent or service charges. The resident has the opportunity to apply to the First–Tier Tribunal, which has the expertise and authority to consider the reasonableness of service charges.

Background

The property is a one-bedroom, first floor flat and the resident has been a shared owner of the property since 2019.
The landlord has advised this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. However, there is an alert flag on the property stating that it is a 24/7 extra care scheme.
Under the terms of the lease, the resident is required to pay the specified rent, the service charge, the insurance rent, the utility charge, the wellbeing charge and the ground rent.
The landlord is required under the terms of the lease to:
1. “Keep the common parts of the building adequately cleaned and lighted”.
2. “To provide or procure the provision of utility services to the premises…”.
The lease states that the regulation of service charges as set out in sections 18 to 30B of the Landlord and Tenant Act apply to the lease. The provisions within the Act define service charges and control the level of service charges.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2022 regarding the management of his estate and stated the following:
1. He said that residents had gathered for a meeting with the landlord on 24 November 2022 for it to explain the communal accounts that had been issued in September 2022. However, the landlord did not attend the meeting.
2. The resident stated that the landlord had not issued the personal utility accounts for the year ending 31 March 2022. He said they were 7 months overdue.
3. The resident said that he had not received any information from the landlord about the Government’s £400 payment towards fuel costs. He said that residents had raised this with the landlord on 4 November 2022.
4. The resident advised the landlord that his electricity meter had reverted to zero in October 2022. He said that the landlord had written to him on 3 November 2022 and advised him that its contractor was investigating the matter and until it was resolved he would not be charged. The resident said he had not received any further communication on this from the landlord.
5. He stated that the landlord could conserve electricity by adjusting the automatic lighting in communal areas. He also mentioned that the landlord had been advised on 4 November 2022 that the solar panels could power all the lighting.
6. The resident questioned the information given to residents on 4 November 2022 by the landlord that residents had not been charged for water in 2019/20 and 2020/21. The resident produced his utility charge accounts for these years and said he had been charged £98.82 and £234.82 respectively for these years.
7. He stated that rent from the shops on site and the car park were not reflected in the communal charge accounts.
8. He pointed out that in his view the car park was dangerous because of the volume of visitors using it. He mentioned that vehicles were parking on the pavements and this had damaged the paving slabs.
9. The resident advised the landlord that the dryer in the communal laundrette had been out of order for months, the patio door to his property could not be locked and draught excluder had not been fitted in relation to his front door.
The landlord wrote to all residents in the scheme on 1 December 2022 to provide them with their utility statements for 2021/22. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the statements and said this had been due to a cyber attack on its systems. The statements provided the unit rates for gas and electricity and stated that they would be fixed for 4 years.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint on 2 December 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 December 2022 and questioned the utility statement and communal charges account, which he said did not balance. The landlord replied on the same day and said it would investigate the figures quoted by the resident. The resident also wrote to the landlord on the same day and suggested a meeting with the landlord.
On 10 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that he had been expecting a call from the landlord. He stated that he had also written to 2 of the landlord’s managers and had not received a reply.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 December 2022 to apologise for not calling him. The landlord advised the resident that it was aware the resident was going away for a while and therefore it would provide a response which would be available for him on his return.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 January 2023 to raise objections to the landlord’s section 20 notice regarding the work required to footways on the estate. The landlord replied on the same day and clarified that the letter had been sent to all leaseholders across the landlord’s housing stock.
The landlord’s records state that it issued its stage one reply on 5 January 2023, which stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for cancelling a meeting with residents on 24 November 2022, which it said had to be cancelled for unforeseen circumstances.
2. The landlord apologised for the delay in delivering the personal utility bills to residents, which it said had been due to a cyber attack and because the landlord wanted to be able to advise residents of the new fixed rates.
3. With regards to the resident’s concerns over the £400 government payment towards energy costs, the landlord said it had been waiting for information about how the scheme would work. The landlord said it was checking for guidance each week and was in contact with the energy suppliers.
4. The landlord said it had been waiting for a specialist to check the meters and the system for any issues. The landlord confirmed that when the resident’s meter had reverted to zero, he would not have been charged for any use that was not accounted for.
5. The landlord confirmed it had reported the fault with the lights in the corridor, which meant the sensor was activated when the resident entered his kitchen. The landlord said that the fault had been addressed by an engineer. The landlord said it was still waiting for a response regarding the solar panels.
6. In terms of the water bills, the landlord stated that the resident had received credit payments during the last 2 years when he had received his financial statements. The landlord said this took into account the amounts the resident had paid to the landlord in his service charge and the fact that the landlord had not received a water bill from the water board.
7. The landlord said it had displayed a notice regarding its intentions for the car parking issue. The works would involve installing concrete bollards and applying tarmac to the pavement.
8. The landlord said that it would chase the other repairs listed in the resident’s letter. The issue with the patio door had been raised with the door fitters.
9. The landlord said it would not agree to replace the missing draught excluder as this had been removed by the carpet fitters.
10. The landlord concluded by stating that it had not found a service failure as all the issues raised were in hand.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 January 2023 and confirmed it had been contacted by this Service regarding the resident’s complaint. The landlord attached a further copy of its stage one reply and provide information on how the resident could escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 19 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and accepted the landlord’s offer of a meeting. He asked the landlord to send him a copy of his full accounts prior to attending the meeting. The resident stated that the 2021 utility bills showed he was being charged higher unit costs than he had been notified by the landlord. The landlord replied on the same day and confirmed it would send the resident a full rent statement from the start of him moving in.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2023 and included the following comments in response to the landlord’s stage one letter:
1. The resident confirmed that residents had received the personal utility accounts in early December 2022, however, he had concerns about the statements. The landlord had met with him on 24 January 2023 to discuss the accounts and it was agreed that the landlord would carry out further investigations.
2. The resident said that as far as he was aware a specialist had not attended to investigate the reported issues with the electricity meters.
3. The resident said that the reported issues with the communal lights had not been addressed as there had been no changes to the lighting.
4. The resident said that he was “appalled” that the landlord was not aware of the capabilities of the solar panels.
5. The resident said he was confused by the landlord’s response on the water accounts. He provided further information and said he was currently investigating his account with the landlord as he believed there were discrepancies.
6. The resident said that the reported issues relating to his patio door had been outstanding for over 6 months. The resident added that the landlord had attended in early October 2022 and had seen the issue with the locking mechanism.
7. In relation to the draught excluder, the resident said that his front door was a fire door and he did not believe it would currently meet the fire safety regulations. The resident confirmed that the matter had been resolved as the contractor had replaced the part containing the draught excluder, which was defective.
8. The resident pointed out that although the landlord’s stage one letter was dated 5 January 2023, he had not received it until 11 January 2023.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on the same day (24 January 2023) and requested it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He stated that the outstanding matters were issues with the meters, the lights in the corridors, the water accounts, the patio door and the dryer in the communal laundry. On 1 February 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint.
On 8 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident that its gardening team would be on the estate on 20 March 2023 and invited the resident to attend to discuss any areas of concern.
Between 15 and 17 March 2023, the landlord and the resident exchanged further emails regarding the charges for 2023/24.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 March 2023 to advise that he had not yet received any information from the landlord regarding the service charge review for 2023/24. The landlord replied on the same day and provided information regarding the rent review. It also stated that it had revisited the utility statements for 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 and it would send them out as soon as possible. The landlord said that its customer solutions team would contact the resident regarding his complaint and had chased the issue regarding his patio door.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 April 2023 and stated that the electrical problem in the kitchen had partly been dealt with and a new part had been ordered. The resident questioned why his service charge account was in arrears as he paid by direct debit every month. He also requested an explanation regarding some of the charges on the statement. The landlord replied on the same day and said it had asked one of its staff to contact the resident regarding his account. The landlord confirmed it would send out the corrected utility statements the following week.
On 23 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident the annual rent review letter outlining the changes in the charges from 1 April 2023.
The resident wrote to a government minister on 16 May 2023 and stated that he had experienced poor housing management services from the landlord. He advised that his patio door lock had still not been repaired, despite waiting for over 12 months and not being able to lock it. He listed various other matters that he was dissatisfied with in relation to the management of the scheme.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 May 2023 and confirmed he had received notification of the 2023/24 service charges. He stated that his account had fallen into arrears through no fault of his own and asked the landlord how it intended to recover the debt. He reported that there had been parking problems caused by the landlord’s staff attending a meeting at the scheme that day.
The landlord replied on the same day (19 May 2023) and explained that it could not have sent the rent review letters earlier as the landlord had to wait for the February retail price index (RPI) figures. It apologised for the delay, which it said was also partly due to issues with its new system. The landlord said that it had previously asked its staff not to park in the scheme spaces when holding meetings. The landlord asked the resident in future to speak to the scheme staff if he saw any staff parking in a resident’s space.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2023 and stated that although he accepted the RPI figures were not available until 21 March 2023, he questioned why he had not been notified earlier. The resident stated that he found the account confusing and believed it to be incorrect. He highlighted various figures that he had concerns about. The landlord replied on 23 May 2023 and said it would look into the queries regarding the dates of the communication. The landlord said it was happy to meet with the resident and suggested a date.
The resident wrote to this Service on 27 May 2023 and advised that some of the issues raised with the landlord had been resolved, including:
1. Residents had received the Government fuel payment of £400.
2. The meters were now reading correctly but he had not received confirmation of this from the landlord.
3. An adjustment had been made to the lights in the corridor which resulted in a slight improvement but the resident felt the arrangements were still unsatisfactory.
4. The patio door had been repaired.
5. The front door draught excluder had been repaired and replaced.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2023 to inform him that it would send its stage 2 response by 21 June 2023.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2023 and provided the resident with his correct rent and services charge figures. The landlord explained the reason for the arrears on the resident’s account.
On 19 June 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord said that the resident had requested it to escalate his complaint on 24 January 2023 and he had confirmed that the outstanding issues were:
  1. Issues with the meters.
  2. Lights in the corridor.
  3. The patio door.
  4. The dryer in the communal area.
2. The landlord apologised for the delay in handling the stage 2 complaint, which it said had been due to an error with its system. The landlord had identified the problem as a human error and had therefore reviewed its internal processes.
3. The landlord said it had not found any evidence that the issues raised by the resident had been brought to its attention prior to the formal complaint. However, it accepted that the resident may have raised them with its Retirement Living Manager and they had not been documented on its systems.
4. The landlord confirmed it was aware of issues with some of the meters in the scheme, including meters not working or returning to zero. It said that it was recording these, monitoring the situation and carrying out further investigations to identify the root cause. The landlord said that when the last meter readings were taken by the Scheme Manager the meter was recorded as working correctly.
5. The resident had raised concerns about the sensitivity of the corridor lights and that all lights remained on when a sensor had operated a section of the corridor lights. The landlord confirmed that the sensor in question had been altered to stop the corridor lights coming on when the resident entered his kitchen. The landlord apologised that this had not made much of a difference.
6. The landlord confirmed that as carers were on site for 24 hours, some lights had to remain on all evening for safety, deliveries and cleaning.
7. The resident had raised queries in relation to the water charges for 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22. The landlord said it had confirmed that these amounts did not just relate to water but included all utilities for his property. The landlord said it had identified issues with statements, which it had rectified and would be sending out shortly.
8. The landlord advised the resident that one of its staff would contact him to discuss the findings from its investigation into a refund the resident had received from 2019/20.
9. The landlord stated that the works to the resident’s patio door had now been completed.
10. The landlord advised the resident that the dryer in the communal laundry was now in full working order and the matter had been resolved.
11. The landlord apologised again for the complaint handling delays and offered compensation of £50 for the delays at stage one and £150 for the delays at stage 2.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord wrote to the resident’s MP on 3 July 2023 to provide an update on various matters, including:
1. The patio door lock had been reported as a defect to the original window company. However, they had refused to deal with the matter and therefore the landlord arranged for its own day-to-day contractor to carry out repairs. The landlord said these had now been completed.
2. An engineer had attended to make safe the kitchen switch. A part was ordered and the switch was repaired on 26 May 2023.
3. In relation to the lights, the landlord said that an engineer had addressed them following the resident’s stage one complaint. Following the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord said the sensor was adjusted to stop the lights coming on when the resident entered his kitchen. The landlord accepted this had not made a significant difference and explained that the lights were needed for the safety of its staff who were on site in the evenings. The landlord said it had instructed its staff to turn off the lights whenever they could.
4. The landlord said that the solar panels had been inspected recently and a fault had been found. The landlord had therefore ordered a part to get them reconnected and it would update residents when the repairs were complete.
5. The landlord confirmed that the resident had not been affected by the roof leak as his property was not on the top floor. It stated that it had carried out repairs to the roof on various occasions.
6. The landlord outlined the reasons for the increase in the 2023/24 service charges and the steps it had taken to limit the increases. The landlord said there had been a delay in sending out the letters for the new service charges because the increase had to be based on the February RPI figure, which was only available from mid-March 2023.
7. The landlord said it had revisited all the utility statements since the scheme opened and had found some errors. The landlord was therefore in the process of arranging for them to be externally audited before reissuing them to residents.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 July 2023 to set out the reasons he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 reply, which were:
1. He said that the utility statements had still not been issued as he understood they had now been referred to an auditor.
2. He stated that the reported issues with the meters had still not been resolved.
3. He said that the communal lighting had not been addressed.
4. The resident said he did not accept the landlord’s explanations regarding the water charge account.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 27 October 2023 and stated that various contractors had recently attended to carry out work on the scheme, however, a number of matters were still outstanding. The resident said that his patio door and the kitchen switch had been satisfactorily dealt with but he said there were still problems with the roof. The resident stated that the solar panels had now been connected after 4 years but he believed that compensation should be paid to residents for not connecting them sooner. The resident stated that the matters relating to the accounts were still unsatisfactory.
The resident wrote on 9 January 2024 and advised the landlord that he was concerned about the financing of various repairs that he said dated back to the construction of the building. He listed the areas of concerns and requested the landlord to provide information on the costs involved and who was responsible for meeting the costs. The resident also raised various queries regarding the service charge accounts.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint response to the resident on 19 February 2024, which covered the resident’s concerns about the service charge accounts, the fault with his front door and queries about responsibility for the major works to the scheme.
The resident responded to the landlord on 27 February 2024 and stated that his front door had been attended to and he understood that work to the roof would commence on 28 February 2024. He stated that he continued to have concerns about the accounts, which was causing him anxiety.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2024 to provide his utility statement for 2022/23 and the amendments for previous years. The landlord apologised for the delay in sending the information.
The landlord advised this Service on 25 October 2024 that its records show the stage one letter was sent on 5 January 2023. However, it would have been sent by second-class post and therefore may have arrived on 11 January 2023.
The landlord advised this Service on 29 October 2024 that its facilities coordinator adjusted the communal light sensor to prevent the sensor from activating when the resident entered his kitchen. However, as the facilities coordinator is no longer employed by the organisation, the landlord is unable to say when he adjusted the sensor.
The landlord also advised this Service on 29 October 2024 that there is a wider issue with approximately one third of the meters in the scheme which have been affected by a software failure. The software is due to be upgraded on 31 October 2024 and the landlord expects to understand the cause of the issues by the end of November 2024. In the meantime, residents with affected meters are not being charged for their usage and the landlord is covering these costs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord used its internal complaint procedure to investigate and respond to several issues. However, on 24 July 2023, the resident responded to the landlord’s stage 2 letter and stated that he was dissatisfied in relation to the following aspects of his complaint:
1. The reported issues with the utility statements.
2. The reported issues with the electricity meters.
3. The reported issues with the communal lighting.
4. The reported issues with the water charge accounts.
5. The landlord’s complaints handling.
Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the above aspects of the resident’s complaint.
The resident sent various correspondence to the landlord and to the Ombudsman after the landlord had sent its final complaint response on 19 June 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.
The Ombudsman’s decision not to investigate matters after the landlord’s stage 2 reply means that matters such as the reported roof leaks and the request for compensation due to the reported delays in connecting the solar panels have not been investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the water charges and the reported delay in receiving the utility statements

The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2022 and stated that the landlord had not yet issued the personal utility accounts for the year ending 31 March 2022 and said they were 7 months overdue. The landlord wrote to all residents in the scheme on 1 December 2022 and provided them with the utility statements for the year ending 31 March 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in issuing the statements and said this had been due to a cyber attack on its systems. The landlord had therefore acted reasonably by issuing the statements 3 working days after the resident’s complaint, apologising for the delay and explaining the reason for the delay.
The landlord apologised again in its stage one reply for the delay in sending out the utility statements. As well as the cyber attack causing a delay in issuing the statements, the landlord said that the statements had been delayed because it wanted to communicate the new fixed rates for the utilities. It explained that it therefore had to wait for the bills to arrive from the utility companies so it could calculate the correct rates. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of when the landlord received the information from the utility companies, however, it was reasonable that the landlord provided further information regarding the cause of the delay in its complaint response.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised various queries regarding the utility charges and that subsequently the landlord identified errors with the figures and therefore arranged for them to be externally audited. However, the content of the utility charges did not form part of the resident’s stage one complaint and was not considered by the landlord at stage 2 of the process. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the content of the utility statements.
Part of the resident’s complaint was about the information he had received regarding the water charges. The Ombudsman’s is unable to decide whether the charges in the water bills were correct or reasonable as this would be a matter for the First-Tier tribunal. This Service has therefore focussed on the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges and how it responded to the resident’s request for information.
In his letter of 28 November 2022, the resident had questioned the information the landlord had provided to residents on 4 November 2022 regarding the water charges. He said that the landlord had incorrectly stated that residents had not been charged for water in 2019/20 and 2020/21. The resident therefore provided the landlord with information, which he said showed that he had been charged for water for these years.
The evidence shows that the landlord was due to have called the resident on 9 December 2022 to discuss various issues but had not done so. The landlord apologised for this on 12 December 2022 and said that as the resident would be away from the property for a while, the landlord would contact him on his return. It was a shortcoming that the landlord had not contacted the resident even though it had agreed to do so. The resident said in his email dated 10 December 2022 that he was disappointed not to have been called as he had waited all day.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 5 January 2023 in which it provided information in response to the resident’s queries regarding the water charges. It was reasonable that the landlord had provided information to respond to the resident’s concerns about the water charges.
The landlord met with the resident on 24 January 2023 to discuss various queries and the evidence suggested that this included the service charges. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord had met with the resident face-to-face as this provided an additional way the resident could raise his concerns.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2023 and stated that he still found the information from the landlord on the water charges to be confusing. He said that he was investigating his account with the landlord. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 19 June 2023 that the amounts queried by the resident did not just relate to water but to all utilities. The landlord did, however, say that it had identified issues with the statements, which it had now rectified and would be sending out to residents shortly. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord had checked the figures the resident had queried and would be sending out corrected statements.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted reasonably by explaining the reasons for the delay in sending out the personal utility accounts. It had also communicated reasonably with the resident regarding his queries about the water charges. If the resident disputes the accuracy of the actual charges, he would need to apply to the First-Tier tribunal which has the expertise and authority to consider the reasonableness of service charges.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the electricity meter for his property

The resident stated in his email dated 28 November 2022 that his electricity meter had reverted to zero in October 2022 and the landlord had advised him on 3 November 2022 that it would investigate the matter. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided the resident with an update on its investigations prior to sending its stage one reply on 5 January 2023.
In its stage one reply, the landlord said it had been waiting for a specialist to check residents’ meters and the system for any errors. The landlord attempted to reassure the resident by advising him that he would not have been charged for any use that was not accounted for. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided an update to the resident since it had advised him on 3 November 2022 that it would investigate the matter. As a result, the resident included his concerns about the meter in his complaint dated 28 November 2022 and indicated that he had still not received any feedback from the landlord regarding the matter at that point. He stated that, as far as he was aware, a specialist had not attended to investigate his meter.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 May 2023 and stated that his meter was now reading correctly but he had not received any confirmation of this from the landlord. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord stated that the last meter readings taken by its staff showed the resident’s meter was working correctly. However, it advised the resident that it was aware of some issues with meters in the scheme and was recording details, monitoring the situation and carrying out further investigations. As the landlord had identified wider issues with some of the meters, it was reasonable to advise the resident of this and to provide reassurance that it would monitor these issues. The monitoring would enable the landlord to identify any underlying faults with the meters. It was also reasonable that the landlord had reassured the resident that the last readings had shown his meter was working correctly.
This Service has, however, found there was a failing on the part of the landlord for not providing better communication to the resident regarding the meters prior to sending its stage 2 reply. The evidence indicates that the landlord had advised the resident on 3 November 2022 that it was investigating the meter and confirmed on 5 January 2023 that it was waiting for a specialist to check the meter. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not kept the resident adequately updated regarding its investigations into his meter between the following periods:
1. From 3 November 2022 to 5 January 2023 when it sent its stage one reply; and
2. From 5 January 2023 to 19 June 2023 when it sent its stage 2 reply.
The landlord’s lack of communication meant that the resident had not been given appropriate reassurance that the matter was being fully investigated.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the reported issues with the resident’s meter caused any incorrect billing and the resident did not indicate this was the case. However, his correspondence showed that he was anxious for the matter to be fully investigated. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure by the landlord due to its lack of communication and its lack of feedback regarding any investigations it had carried out prior to its stage 2 reply. The landlord has been ordered to pay compensation of £50, which is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the lighting in the corridors

The resident stated in his letter dated 28 November 2022 that the landlord could conserve energy by adjusting the automatic lighting in the communal corridors. The landlord advised the resident in its stage one reply dated 5 January 2023 that an engineer had addressed the fault with the lighting sensor being activated when the resident entered his kitchen. However, the landlord has not been able to provide any records to verify that an engineer attended to rectify the problem. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to conclude definitively that an engineer attended.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2023 to say that the lighting in the corridor had not been addressed as the lighting had not changed. The landlord has advised this Service that its facilities coordinator subsequently adjusted the sensor so that it was no longer activated when the resident entered his kitchen. The landlord is unable to say when this adjustment was made as the facilities coordinator is no longer employed by the organisation. However, the resident wrote to this Service on 27 May 2023 and confirmed that the landlord had adjusted the lights in the corridor which had resulted in a slight improvement. The resident added, however, that the lighting was still unsatisfactory.
It was reasonable that the landlord had adjusted the lighting sensor in the corridor as the resident had pointed out in his stage 2 complaint on 24 January 2023 that the lighting had not improved. It was, however, a shortcoming that the landlord had not made the adjustment to the sensor earlier as the resident had reported issues with the lighting in his complaint on 28 November 2022.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply on 19 June 2023 that the adjustment to the light sensor had not made a significant difference in relation to the corridor lighting overall. The landlord added that some of the lights had to remain on all evening for safety reasons due to deliveries, cleaning and other duties carried out by its staff. The landlord also stated in its letter to the MP on 3 July 2023 that it had requested its onsite staff to turn off the lights whenever they could.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident remained dissatisfied with the action taken by the landlord regarding the lighting and he wrote to the landlord on 24 July 2023 to set out his reasons. However, the view of this Service is that the landlord took reasonable steps overall to investigate and address the resident’s concerns regarding the corridor lighting because:
1. The landlord had arranged for the light sensor to be adjusted so that the lights would no longer be activated when the resident entered his kitchen. The resident accepted on 27 May 2023 that there had been a slight improvement.
2. The landlord had explained in its stage 2 reply that there were safety reasons why some of the lights had to remain on all evening. Although the resident disputed this point, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord was entitled to prioritise the safety of its staff members by ensuring the lights remained on.
3. The landlord advised the resident’s MP on 3 July 2023 that it had asked its staff to switch off the corridor lights whenever possible.
The Ombudsman has noted the landlord’s lack of records to show when an engineer attended to adjust the lights and when its facilities manager adjusted the lighting sensor. In the Ombudsman’s view, the lack of records may be indicative of problems with the landlord’s recordkeeping. The Ombudsman has therefore made a recommendation for the landlord to ensure it keeps appropriate records to show where work has been carried out on the scheme, including minor work such as adjusting light sensors.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response provided within 10 working days of receipt unless it is complex, in which case the landlord will discuss and agree an extension of the timescales directly with the resident. The landlord’s complaints policy states that generally, any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days, and a response provided within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. However, if this is not possible, an explanation will be provided and a date confirmed as to when the stage 2 response will be received. The policy states that generally any extension will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2022 and reported various issues in relation to his property and the scheme. The landlord’s records show that it received the complaint on 29 November 2022 and treated it as a stage one complaint. It acknowledged the complaint on 2 December 2022 and had therefore sent the acknowledgement within its prescribed timescale of 5 working days.
The landlord’s stage one reply was dated 5 January 2023, however, the resident wrote to the landlord on 24 January 2023 and stated that he had not received the response until 11 January 2023. The information seen by this Service confirms that the landlord emailed a copy of the response to the resident on 11 January 2023. However, the landlord has stated that the letter would have been posted by second-class post and therefore he may have received it on 11 January 2023. It therefore took between 24 and 28 working days to respond to the complaint, depending on whether the landlord sent the reply on 5 or 11 January 2023. In both cases, the landlord took longer than its 10-working day target and therefore the time taken to respond was inappropriate.
The resident requested the landlord to escalate his complaint on 24 January 2023 and the landlord acknowledged this on 1 February 2023. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within 6 working days. This was slightly longer than its 5-working day target and was therefore a shortcoming on its part.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 19 June 2023, which was 100 working days after the resident’s request to escalate his complaint. The time taken for the landlord to reply was therefore excessive. The landlord had written to the resident on 7 June 2023 to apologise for the delay and advise him that the response would be sent by 21 June 2023. However, even at the time the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2023, the reply was already considerably late compared to the landlord’s target timescale of 20-working days. The delay was therefore inappropriate as it meant that the resident had to wait a considerable time to receive a formal response to his complaint.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the complaint handling delays, particularly those at stage 2 of the process. It explained that these had been due to an error with its system due to human error. The landlord said it had therefore reviewed its internal processes and offered the resident compensation of £200 to put things right. £50 of the sum offered was for the delays at stage one and £150 was for the delays at stage 2.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right. 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 this case, the landlord acted fairly by acknowledging its failings in handling the resident’s complaints. It also acted fairly by apologising for the delays and explaining the reason for the lengthy delay at stage 2. The landlord demonstrated that it wanted to learn from outcomes by reviewing its internal systems. Finally, the landlord offered financial redress, which the Ombudsman encourages landlord’s to do as part of a range of ways to put things right.
The £200 offered by the landlord is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but there was no permanent impact. In this case, the resident experienced inconvenience, time and trouble and potentially delays in getting matters resolved. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the delays would not have had a permanent impact on the resident given the matters included in the complaint. The Ombudsman’s view is therefore that the landlord offered reasonable redress to put things right in terms of its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the water charges and the reported delay in receiving the utility statements.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the electricity meter for his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the lighting in the corridors.
In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the liability for future service charges relating to communal repairs is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acted reasonably by explaining the reasons for the delay in sending out the personal utility accounts. It also communicated reasonably with the resident regarding his queries about the water charges.
There was a lack of communication from the landlord regarding the action it was taking to investigate the reported issues with the resident’s meter. For example, the landlord did not provide the resident with feedback regarding any investigations carried out by a specialist.
The landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and address the resident’s concerns regarding the corridor lighting by arranging for the lighting senor to be adjusted. It explained that there were safety reasons for leaving the lights on in the evening and said it would ask its staff to turn off lights whenever possible.
The resident advised the landlord on 9 January 2024 that he was concerned about the financing of various repairs. In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in handling the resident’s complaints, apologised for the delays and explained the reason for the lengthy delay at stage 2. The landlord demonstrated that it wanted to learn from outcomes by reviewing its internal systems. Finally, the landlord offered reasonable financial redress to put things right.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the lack of communication regarding the reported issues with the resident’s meter and confirm the findings of any investigations carried out by a specialist in relation to the meter.
2. Pay the resident £50 for its handling of the reported issues with the meter.

Recommendations

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £200 offered in its stage 2 reply for complaint handling if this has not already been paid.
The landlord should ensure it keeps appropriate records of work carried out on the scheme, including minor work such as adjusting light sensors.