Citizen Housing Group Limited (202334141)

Background

1. The resident raised concerns about the condition of an alleyway near her property. She felt the alleyway was the fire escape from the property and was unsafe. She queried the reasonableness of her service charge for garden maintenance given the condition of the alleyway.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of an alleyway.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of an alleyway.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of an alleyway

6. There were times during the landlord’s handling of the issue where it took too long or did not respond to the resident’s complaints. This led to the resident not receiving the level of service she should of expected.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to address all of the points raised by the resident in her complaint and it did not apologise for a delay in its complaint response.

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.

What we have not investigated

8. Our Scheme rules state we may not investigate complaints which were not referred to the landlord as a complaint within a reasonable time, which is normally 12 months. The resident said that she had reported issues with the alleyway to the landlord since 2020. We have not been provided with any evidence the resident reported this issue to the landlord until her formal complaint in September 2023.
9. We have not been provided with any evidence that the resident reported an issue with the alleyway or that the landlord had carried out any work to the alleyway during the time the resident has been living at the property. For that reason, our investigation has focused on the period from September 2023 when the resident made the landlord aware of the issue.
10. The resident alleged the landlord was committed fraud by having a service charge for communal garden maintenance and not doing work in the alleyway. We do not investigate complaints about whether a resident’s service charge is reasonable. This is because a tribunal is best placed to consider this and determine if this was a reasonable charge. As such, our investigation does not consider whether the landlord should have charged the resident for communal garden maintenance.

What we have investigated

11. The evidence shows the resident raised a complaint about the condition of the alleyway on 15 September 2023. We have not been provided the details of any date prior that the resident made such a report.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to address non-emergency repairs within 25 working days. Although the landlord was still within this timeframe when it sent the stage 1 response, it was reasonable for it to apologise and offer redress to acknowledge the frustration caused to the resident by the outstanding repair issue. This was on the basis it acknowledged the resident had previously reported the matter although we have not been provided with any evidence of when she did so.
13. The landlord arranged a survey of the alleyway and committed to clearing the area. It also added the alleyway maintenance to its programme of works. This was reasonable action for it to take to improve the current condition of the alleyway. It also demonstrated proactive steps to maintain the area in the future.
14. The date of the inspection is not clear, however from the resident’s correspondence this had taken place before 31 October 2023. We have not been provided with evidence of the outcome of this inspection or that the landlord shared this with the resident. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have been transparent with the resident about its findings.
15. Within its stage 2 response, the landlord explained that it did not know if it was responsible for the alleyway. The issue of ownership and responsibility for the alleyway is something the landlord failed to consider earlier on in the complaints process. However, once this was identified as a possible issue, it was appropriate that the landlord would try to clarify its position and confirm this to the resident as soon as practicable. Although the landlord later appeared to accept responsibility for the alleyway, we have not seen evidence that it confirmed the ownership of the alleyway to the resident.
16. The landlord’s offer to meet with the resident to discuss her concerns and monitor the progress of the situation was reasonable. However, the stage 2 response failed to address the resident’s concerns that rubbish and shrubs had not been removed as promised at stage 1. This was a missed opportunity to show that it had taken all of her concerns seriously and had taken steps to resolve them.
17. The evidence also shows the resident raised concerns about not being able to use the alleyway as a part of her fire escape route. The landlord did not address this in its complaint responses.
18. Following our involvement, the landlord confirmed the alleyway was not a designated emergency exit for the resident’s property. Access to and from her building was located on the side of her property. It is reasonable to expect the landlord should have been able to provide this information during its internal complaints procedure. It was a failure on its part to take so long to provide the information, particularly given the resident’s concerns about using the area as part of her fire escape route.
19. Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, the landlord provided evidence that it had cleared the alleyway and replaced paving slabs that were loose or missing.
20. Our investigation has found the landlord acknowledged the effect the delays and time taken from its initial handling of the matter on the resident. It offered compensation. However, our investigation identified additional failures, which the landlord did not acknowledge or provide redress for. These are summarised as follows:
    1. It did not show that it had told the resident the outcome of the alleyway inspection.
    2. It did not consider if it owned the alleyway until its stage 2 response.
    3. Its stage 2 response failed to address the resident’s concerns that rubbish and shrubs had not been removed.
    4. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that the alleyway was her fire escape.
21. When failures are identified, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
22. The landlord’s offer of £30 compensation was not sufficient to acknowledge the effect of its combined failures on the resident. As such, it failed to put things right during the internal complaints procedure. This leads to our determination of maladministration.
23. To acknowledge the effect of the combined failures on the resident, we have ordered an additional £320 compensation. This brings the total compensation for the substantive matter to £350. This amount is in line with our remedies guidance for situations where the landlord acknowledged there were failings and made some attempt to put things right. But failed to fully address the detriment caused to the resident and where the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

24. The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time, said it aimed to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days. It then aimed to respond at stage 1 in 10 working days. At stage 2, it aimed to respond in 20 working days. If more time was needed it would keep the resident informed. This policy was in line with our Code.
25. The landlord took 6 working days to respond at stage 1 and 22 working days at stage 2. Although the landlord’s stage 2 response was delayed by 2 working days, we have not been provided with any evidence that this had an adverse effect on the resident. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for this delay, which was not appropriate.
26. Our Code makes it clear that landlord’s should respond to all of the resident’s concerns within its complaint responses. The landlord failed to address all of the resident’s concerns, including about not being able to use the alleyway as a fire escape. Given the resident’s concerns about this safety issue, the failure to address this aspect was not reasonable or in line with our Code.
27. Given the failure to address all aspects of complaint, this leads to a determination of service failure. To acknowledge the effect of this on the resident, we have ordered £50 compensation. This is in line with a range recommended by our remedies guidance where the failure may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

28. The landlord’s record keeping allowed us to properly assess the evidence in the case. However, it could have been improved by having records of the outcome of the survey.

Communication

29. The landlord’s communications with the resident could have been improved by proactively updating her about the need for more time to respond at stage 2. It also could have explained to the resident why it did not consider who owned the alleyway until its stage 2 response. The landlord should take learning from this case around the need for transparency in how it communicates, in order to improve trust and confidence in its service delivery.