Community Gateway Association Limited (202006096)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006096

Community Gateway Association

30 June 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident has complained about:
1. The time taken to respond to reports of a beeping fire alarm.
2. Contractors visiting without notice.
3. The standard of cleaning in communal areas, including the inadequate use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
4. The landlord’s response to reports about the communal door being left open.
5. The management of the refuse store.
6. The frequency of service charge invoices and account statements.
7. The handling of ongoing anti-social behaviour from a neighbouring flat.
8. The landlord’s decision to not repair or compensate for interior decoration following a leak from the roof.

Background

The resident took their complaint through the landlord’s complaint process in June-July 2020. They raised a series of issues (as listed above) that they felt the landlord had not addressed in the year before the complaint.
The resident does not live in the property and lives abroad. Therefore the majority of the communication was by email.
Some of issues have continued after the date of the final response. This includes an application for a Community Trigger to the local council (and the resulting appeal) and a complaint to the local fire service about the fire alarm at the end of 2020 and start of 2021. The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess how a landlord has handled a formal complaint about its service. Therefore we can only assess issues and incidents which the landlord has had the opportunity to respond to through its complaint process first. As such this assessment can consider the way the complaint was responded to up to July 2020. Any concerns about the landlord’s service after this date would first need to be raised and responded to through the landlord’s complaint procedure.

Assessment

Fire alarm

The resident complained on 8 June 2020 that they had heard a fire alarm bleeping for over a year and that the landlord had not dealt with this. They explained they were worried about the health and safety risk of a faulty alarm. They highlighted the various CCTV clips they had sent (from a video doorbell) where the bleeping could be heard.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses explained that there were no previous repair request records for a fire alarm. The second response highlighted a record of a surveyor’s visit in December 2019 when a neighbour reported the intermittent bleeping to the surveyor. The surveyor knocked on the door of the flat where the bleeping was reported to come from but there was no answer. They asked another neighbour to explain to the resident of the flat that the alarm needed a new battery, and to contact the landlord if there was an issue. There is no record from the time of this visit in the information provided for this case however.
The landlord explained to the resident that it had no record of previous reports from the resident over the previous 12 months. Neither party has provided copies of emails that include reports about a bleeping fire alarm prior to the June complaint.
The landlord arranged a visit following the complaint on 16 June to the suspected property but could not gain access. This visit is evidenced on the landlord’s ‘OC rep history’ document, and notes that no alarm was heard. It did note an intermittent beep caused by a low battery. The final response stated that following that visit the landlord did gain access to the neighbouring property on another day and the issue was thought to be resolved. A record of the follow up visit (and the work completed or advice given to the occupant) has not been provided.
The resident has subsequently complained about the visit in that their front doorbell camera recorded several clips of the operative complaining they could not reach the landlord by phone to discuss the repair, and that this was a recurring issue.
The Housing Ombudsman Service will not investigate the ongoing relationship between a contractor and the landlord beyond the impact it may have on the actual delivery of a service. In this case while the contractor’s operative may have been frustrated when trying to contact the landlord, they ultimately were able to discuss the case that day while at the building. More relevant is that the landlord’s repair response times are measured by the number of days it takes to respond. Therefore it is not proportionate to assess every interaction between a landlord and one its contractors so long as the required actions are taken within reasonable timeframes.
The fire alarm issue has continued beyond the final response. Therefore it appears the landlord’s explanation in the final response that they had accessed the suspected property did not resolve the issue.
Later correspondence has been provided between the landlord and resident, and between the landlord and the local fire service following a complaint to the fire service by the resident.
As explained above, any incidents or issues that arose after the final response have not been investigated and responded to by the landlord through its complaint procedure, and so cannot be assessed in this report.
At the time of the landlord’s final response it had:
1. Explained the records it had of past reports and invited the resident to submit any others.
2. Arranged a visit to the building to try and find the source of the bleeping.
3. Given appropriate advice that the noise appeared to be a low battery warning and therefore the resident of the relevant property needed to replace the battery.
The landlord should have provided evidence (such as a visit or repair records) of the follow up visit on which it based its final decision that the issue was resolved. However the timing of the complaint procedure meant that the issue was ongoing when the responses were sent. Therefore the main obligation for the landlord would be to continue investigating any follow up reports it received after the final response, given this would contradict the understanding it had set out in that final response.
The lack of a record of this one visit is not sufficient in itself for a finding against the landlord. However in the future the landlord should provide more specific information about any visits or actions that are used in a formal complaint response.

Unannounced contractor visits

The resident complained that there had been unannounced visits to their property. The landlord explained it had no record of unsuccessful attempts to visit the property. The resident’s escalated complaint referred to ‘several occasions over the last 6 months’ where they had spoken to someone from the landlord using their online doorbell camera. They noted that they had CCTV footage of these conversations because of the doorbell camera. However the escalated complaint only provided video clips (12) from 16 June 2020.
The landlord explained at stage 1 there was a doorstep consultation in February 2020 to ask about issues in the building. They explained no residents received appointments due to the nature of this visit. The stage 2 response explained that surveyors or staff may visit for inspections or visits related to other properties or communal areas and so may be picked up on the camera. The landlord gave the December 2019 fire safety visit as an example. Again, it explained residents would not be forewarned about these visits.
The landlord stated that it had no record of unsuccessful visits to the resident’s flat. It also explained that all the clips provided by the resident in support of their complaint related to one visit on one day, and that this visit was in response to the resident’s concern about the fire alarm.
The landlord and resident have provided a range of emails related to all the complaint issues. There is no reference to specific unannounced visits in these emails.
More importantly, the landlord highlighted that it had no evidence of unannounced visits in its stage 1 and 2 responses. This gave the resident the opportunity to provide supporting information with their escalated complaint. However the resident only provided details of one visit, and this visit was arranged to investigate the fire alarm bleeping also raised by the resident in their complaint.
Therefore the landlord’s response to the complaint about unannounced visits was reasonable based on the information it had available to it at the time.

Communal cleaning

The resident complained about the quality of the communal cleaning in the building. In particular they complained: there was a lack of cleaning; at times they only hoovered (and did not wipe/clean windows, doors, or areas that were regularly touched); and at times ‘filthy cloths’ were used. The resident also complained that the carpets needed to be steam cleaned as they had reported other residents spitting on the floor.
The resident included concerns about the landlord’s response to Covid in terms of the cleaning. They felt this added urgency to their concerns about the lack or quality of cleaning of surfaces in communal areas; and they reported that the cleaners did not use Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).
The complaint was submitted at the start of June, and had completed the landlord’s complaint procedure by the end of July. During this time:
1. 26 March – ‘lockdown regulations’ came into effect.
2. 28 March – Government published first guidance for landlords and residents stating ‘we recommend that access to a property is only for serious and urgent issues.’
3. 11 May – Government guidance stated landlord’s should complete risk assessments for contractors working in resident homes (silent on communal areas, but reasonable to assume assessments also needed given they are also inside).
4. 18 May – Letter from Housing Minister confirmed restart of routine repairs as well as external and void works.
5. 1 June – Updated guidance stated grounds maintenance and estate services can continue with social distancing.
6. 24 July – face coverings became mandatory in public settings (such as shops)
Therefore at the time of the complaint, and at the time of the video clips provided by the resident in support of the complaint showing cleaning staff (all taken on 16 June) the first ‘lockdown’ restrictions had been eased. The guidance did not specifically refer to PPE, however it did require the landlord to complete a risk assessment as it would for any hazard to its staff.
The landlord’s formal responses explained:
1. No specific Covid-19 cleaning measures were required by the government.
2. That regularly touched surfaces were cleaned. This was disputed by the resident and then upheld by the landlord. As such it discussed the issue with the contractor, who then agreed to provide unspecified additional training.
3. That spitting was an anti-social behaviour issue and not a cleaning issue in the first instance. This was to avoid the landlord arranging carpet cleaning that would be ineffective if the spitting continued. The landlord’s response did not explain how the report would be dealt with as an ASB issue however.
4. That government advice was only to wear medical grade masks in medical settings, and that its staff only wore masks and gloves when the 2-metre social distancing could not be guaranteed. However it stated this distancing could be maintained in the communal areas.
The landlord has also provided some cleaning logs and weekly block checks. These include the paper forms completed and photographed by operatives, internal spreadsheets and inspection reports. Unfortunately these are mostly from after the final response in this case and so not specifically relevant to this assessment (eg August, September, October, November 2020, January 2021, March-April 2021).
However the landlord has explained that these documents are used only for quality control by the contractor and supervisor, therefore it could only provide the records for 6 months prior to the Housing Ombudsman’s information request. The information requests were then sent to the landlord in February and April 2021.
The landlord has explained these documents demonstrate its approach, albeit not direct evidence of the service from the period the complaint relates to.
Alongside the logs there is some email correspondence between the resident and landlord about the cleaning. The landlord followed up the quality of cleaning after the stage 1 complaint. It agreed to arrange for disposable paper towels to be used over the reported dirty cloths.
The resident queried the quality of the cleaning again in July 2020, prior to the stage 2 response. They reported that only the door handles were cleaned, but did compliment the hoovering. The contractor manager confirmed that it was only required to clean the door handles (as opposed to the whole door). It also confirmed it had taken the resident’s previous feedback to ensure the correct cleaning materials were used.
Therefore the landlord has responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint about the communal cleaning. It has used the resident’s feedback to check the quality of its service and made changes where required. This is the purpose of the complaint procedure, and the Housing Ombudsman encourages landlords to resolve any complaints by focusing on responding to the substantive issue.
Any assessment of the quality of cleaning in June 2020 will be complicated by the unprecedented and emerging Covid situation. For example, as in this case, previous use of cloths may no longer feel sufficient, and different people will have different expectations about the cleaning of doors versus handles. Furthermore the landlord’s decision to minimise the number of staff in any building will mean cleaning services would also change (such as only hoovering or wiping services during a visit and not doing both).
Given the nature of the complaint, the information available to the landlord, and the supporting information provided by the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable.
In terms of the landlord’s approach to Covid in terms of the cleaning service, it has provided its June 2020 risk assessment. The assessment noted mitigations including:
1. Only 1 operative to a building at a time.
2. Operatives to maintain team ‘bubbles.’
3. Operatives to have their own, assigned equipment.
4. Masks to be worn where 2 metre distances could not be kept (eg during bulk waste removal when using lifts).
The landlord has also provided a copy of its May 2020 colleague briefing which confirms the measures and advice listed above.
It is also of note that mask wearing only became mandatory after the final response in this case. Therefore the landlord’s explanation that it did not insist on masks at the time was in accordance with government advice.
Therefore the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the Covid context of the cleaning service was based on reasonable information that was available at the time.

Communal door

The resident complained that the communal door was left unlocked. This concern then led onto their concerns about anti-social behaviour and alleged drug related activity (discussed below) as the door allowed non-residents to access the building. They complained the door was only fixed after the resident had involved the police in May/June 2020.
The landlord disputed it had only recently fixed the door and had records of 16 visits over the last 12 months.
Furthermore the landlord explained the May/June issue was caused by other residents activating an emergency release. Therefore it was an anti-social behaviour (ASB) issue and not a repair issue. As a result the landlord installed a camera to monitor the use of the door. The landlord’s wider response to ASB is assessed below.
The resident did not dispute the number of visits by the landlord and its contractor. However they did complain that residents were able to activate an emergency release. The landlord clarified that this was a ‘green exit button’ and not related to an alarm, and that the door was also left open. The landlord’s final response noted there had been a ‘substantial’ improvement in the number of reports in June or July about the door being left open since the camera’s installation.
The communal door complaint began as an apparent repair issue but the focus then moved onto ASB, as the use of the door was an example of potential ASB issues in the building.
In terms of the repair side of the issue, the landlord has an obligation to investigate any reports of a broken door and to arrange an appropriate response. The landlord has stated that it has responded 16 times in the last 12 months.
Unfortunately the records for these visits have not been provided for this investigation. However equally there are no emails on file from the resident repeatedly chasing an overdue repair. A recurring repair issue is not necessarily evidence of a service failure by the landlord. The need for multiple visits may be reasonable if the landlord has followed the advice it has received from appropriately qualified staff or contractors. This is particularly so where the issues appear to be related to the behaviour of other residents and so are outside of the landlord’s immediate ability to control.
The one visit which is noted and discussed by both parties did see the landlord arrange a contractor’s visit. It then followed the contractor’s advice that it was not a repair issue and was an ASB issue and so needed a camera.
Therefore the landlord’s response to the complaint about the communal door was reasonable, based on the information available to it at the time of the complaint. It is noted that there were discussions about the communal door and installation of further CCTV after the July 2020 final response (in January 2021) however, as explained above, they are outside the jurisdiction of this case.

Refuse store

The resident complained that the bins are regularly overflowing and not emptied correctly.
In terms of the bin collection, the landlord correctly explained that this was not its responsibility and was the responsibility of the local council. It stated it had discussed the bins with the council and it had confirmed there were no missed connections. The council also reported it had issues with waste collection across the area due to the covid restrictions affecting the service and the amount of refuse.
The landlord has not provided the copies of this discussion, though there is a record of a meeting with the council about the bins on 2 April 2020. The discussion itself was an effort to help residents and beyond the landlord’s obligations. If a resident is unhappy with the frequency of bin collections then they would need to raise this with the council themselves.
The resident asked that the landlord provide more bins and raise the use of the bins with the other residents.
The landlord highlighted that new residents received information about the bins when moving in, and also agreed to consider a campaign to raise awareness. The later (October 2020) Community Trigger Review appendix noted that leaflets about the use of bins had been delivered to all properties.
The landlord’s final response stated that a new bin store was built in June 2020, and that the local council had confirmed the 5 dumpster bins provided capacity for 30 flats (more than there were in the building). The landlord also explained it had 2 records of overflowing bins from its staff. However as these corresponded with the start of ‘lockdown’ it was considered a likely result of more residents being at home for longer and therefore something that had to be managed in the short term.
The landlord has not provided the repair / works record of the new bin store, or copies of the correspondence with the council to confirm the 5 dumpster bins were sufficient, or the records of the 2 visits where overflowing bins were witnessed. However the Community Trigger Review appendix notes the benefits of the new bin store design.
The landlord has provided a site visit record from after the final response (from August 2020) which noted no overflow in the new bin store, and other records from January, February and March 2021 that all record no overflowing.
The resident sent an email prior to the formal complaint reporting overflowing bins on 5 June 2020, with a picture of significant amounts of rubbish around the bins. There is no record on file of the landlord responding to this specific report. Though the timing does line up with the landlord’s statement that 2 visits at the start of the Covid ‘lockdown’ witnessed overflowing bins, as well as the landlord’s decision to install a new bin store.
Therefore the landlord has responded reasonably to the substantive issue of the use of the bin store. It has replaced the bin store, contacted all residents, and correctly explained any future misuse would be an ASB issue as it relates to resident’s behaviour over which it has less control than its own services.
However, while the substantive issue has been appropriately managed, the communication with the resident was at times inadequate. There is no evidence the resident was contacted to update them about the landlord’s response after their June2020 report. The final response explains the two site visits from the start of lockdown in a way that suggests it had not previously told the resident about them. The later Community Trigger Review report also apologises the resident was not informed at the time that a new bin store would be installed.

Service charge information

The resident has complained they did not receive a monthly statement about their service charge. They explained they had emailed each month November 2019-June 2020 and only receive a statement in December 2019.
The landlord’s response highlighted two invoices emailed in December 2019 and February 2020, and apologised that it had failed to email monthly invoices. It also highlighted however that the monthly fee was the same, therefore individual monthly invoices would not differ, and the amount due remained the same each month.
The resident escalated their complaint asking for a ‘statement on account’ each month, as opposed to just the invoice for that month’s fee. This was so they could see their current balance.
The landlord’s final response explained that statements were produced quarterly and could not be sent monthly. It explained that a resident can ask for an update on the account balance by phone or email, and attached a statement for the resident’s information.
The leasehold agreement (clause 7) sets out how the service charge will be estimated, communicated and then certified each year. It does not stipulate any requirement for monthly (or quarterly) statements. It only specifies that the landlord has an obligation to inform the resident of the estimate for the coming year, and to then provide the resident with the certified actual costs of the previous year.
It is not common practice for a landlord to provide a full statement each month. Costs for the service charge will not be evenly spaced, unlike the service charge fees. Therefore it is normal for landlords (with a variable service charge) to estimate the annual costs and then confirm that year’s fees when the year has finished. Equally for fixed service charges the landlord will need to confirm the comparison of the fees collected with its costs to calculate any future increase to the fees.
Therefore the landlord’s response to the service charge enquiry was reasonable. It should have emailed an invoice each month as requested. However given the obligations of both parties under the lease the apology it offered in the formal response was sufficient. The resident had a continued obligation to pay the service charge fee during this time due to the lease agreement, and this was helped by the fact it is an annual fee split evenly across the months.

Anti-social behaviour (ASB)

The resident has raised a number of issues that can be grouped together as part of wider ASB concerns. They largely revolve around the behaviour of a specific neighbouring property and they believe that the landlord should have evicted the neighbours. In particular the resident has reported:
1. Alleged drug taking and selling.
2. Large numbers of different people living at the neighbouring property at once.
3. The neighbours leaving rubbish in communal areas.
4. Regular noise disturbances.
5. That the landlord has failed to install CCTV as requested.
6. That they believe they are the only resident to report ASB (which they believe is also unsatisfactory).
7. That communal areas are used by people to take drugs and sleep.
8. That (unspecified) people use the resident’s private parking space.
The landlord’s responses to the formal complaint explained:
1. That tenancy enforcement action could take a long time to arrange due to the need for specific evidence. In particular, it highlighted that the dislike of someone’s appearance or lifestyle did not constitute sufficient evidence. This was a reference to the assumptions the landlord explained the resident was making from the brief CCTV clips they had provided from the doorbell camera.
2. That the ASB case was a ‘live case,’ both before and after the formal complaint responses.
3. That the use of CCTV by residents (and the landlord’s subsequent use of any clips it is sent as evidence for formal action) must also take into account the General Data Protection Regulations.
4. That the number of people in a property does not in and of itself affect another resident. Therefore it would not discuss this issue further with the resident.
5. That it had discussed the neighbour leaving rubbish in communal areas with the them in September 2019. It did not explain any further specific action it had taken as the resident reported the issue as ongoing.
6. That the resident’s parking is private parking (and not provided by the landlord). Therefore it signposted the resident to the building parking management contractors and the police.
In terms of the reports received:
1. The landlord has explained it has received over 460 emails from the resident about alleged ASB, often including clips from the doorbell camera.
2. The resident emailed in June 2020 with 80 video clips about the behaviour of 3 neighbouring property across 1-4June. The complaint included alleged drug taking, smoking in communal areas, general ASB and noise issues, and that one of the residents was seen with an ankle tracker.
3. The resident emailed in March with 64 video clips for 17-19 March. They described these as showing excessive noise in the communal area, a large dog, suspicious behaviour, and the general movement of both known and unknown people.
4. The resident emailed the landlord about a police visit in September 2019 to another property. They provided a large number of video clips to the police and the landlord. They reported the general behaviour and noise at unreasonable hours of the night by the neighbour.
5. The resident emailed the landlord about someone sleeping in the communal area in September 2019.
There are acknowledgement emails from the landlord in June and March 2020 and September 2019 in response to the reports above. These emails explain the landlord would need time to review the information and (in the September email) that it was waiting for an update from the police.
The landlord has also explained:
1. It obtained an injunction for a property not related to the resident’s ASB reports, but that had been involved in allowing access to non-residents. The landlord later served a Notice of Seeking Possession on this resident.
2. It removed a smoking shelter that was used by people taking drugs.
3. It added the CCTV to the communal door as noted above.
4. It completed unspecified letter drops and visits as well as sending warning letters to some residents.
5. It sent letters about access by non-residents in May 2019.
6. It made home visits in June 2019, 7 and 10 October 2019 following reports from the resident.
7. The resident did not respond to 3 requests for diary evidence under 3 different ASB case references.
8. Formal warnings were sent in April and July 2020 to the neighbour highlighted in the resident’s reports.
There is a longstanding, complex ASB issue at the building where the resident’s property is. Both the landlord and the resident have explained that the information they have provided to the Housing Ombudsman Service is a sample of the correspondence from the ongoing ASB case.
The complexity of the ASB issues can be seen in the involvement of multiple agencies, culminating in an multi-agency open day at the building in February 2020.
The severity of the ASB is also not disputed by the landlord including access by non-residents (including to sleep in communal areas) as well as alleged drug related activity. Over the course of the ASB case the landlord has not disputed the resident’s reports of ASB.
The landlord has provided advice about what constitutes evidence of ASB. This is important due to the large amount of information the resident provided with their reports. Many of the reports and/or clips are not by the resident as showing various types suspicious behaviour/looks. It was reasonable for the landlord to explain that these reports could not be used to evidence action against another resident. While it is understandable why the resident may make assumptions based on other past activities they have reported, this does not then mean future circumstantial reports can be accepted.
This explanation about what does and does not constitute evidence of ASB is part of a wider point that the landlord also explained to the resident. The resident’s main focus across their complaint to the landlord, council and police were that the neighbouring residents should be evicted. However only the courts are able to end tenancy. The landlord has an obligation to use legal action as a final option, and it must do so with clear, independent, third party evidence of the ASB.
The Housing Ombudsman Service expects landlords to provide a fair service to all its residents. This is particularly important where one resident is reporting ASB by another. To ensure that the landlord’s response is fair it must corroborate the reports it receives with independent third party evidence. In this case much of the ASB related to alleged criminal activity. Therefore it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident to report any issues to the police. The landlord could then base any future legal action on the outcome of the police’s investigation.
The nature of the reports sent by the resident is also important. The resident has sent an extreme number of video clips. This amount of information will present a challenge to the landlord to manage. It may be more appropriate for the resident to provide a brief description of the ASB they have witnessed, and to then provide supporting evidence when requested. This would avoid some potential ASB reports being buried within other reports about another resident’s lifestyle that do not constitute clear ASB.
Furthermore, the reports provided tend to be large numbers of video clips across a short period of time. Where ASB such as noise disturbances is under investigation, the landlord would need to demonstrate consistent ASB as part of an court action. Irregular reports (albeit with large numbers of clips) do not necessarily evidence the same. This is why the landlord asked the resident to complete its standard diary sheets, as it would evidence the consistent nature of any disturbances. However the sheets were not returned.
Ultimately the ASB reported by the resident has lacked the corroborating evidence required for the legal action they complained the landlord had not taken. From the correspondence provided, the landlord has acknowledged and responded to the reports of ASB. It is also clear that it has liaised with appropriate agencies and taken both proactive (such as changes to the building) and reactive (with the residents involved) action.
It would have been helpful if the landlord had tried to manage the contact it received from the resident earlier in the ASB case. This may in turn have helped both parties in that it might have led to more useful and appropriate evidence.
The ASB case has continued past the landlord’s final response. It has also since been subject to a local Community Trigger review (and appeal) of the landlord and other agencies’ actions.

Roof leak

The resident has complained that the landlord has declined to refund them for the cost of personal belongings/decoration damaged by a leak through a flat roof.
There was a leak on 11 June 2020, therefore this issue was only addressed in the stage 2 (final) response. The response stated that the repair to the roof was completed in a (unspecified) timely manner. It also explained any internal repairs would need to be raised with the resident’s insurer.
The resident has explained they believe that as the landlord is responsible for the roof, and as the leak was resolved by a repair to the roof, this means that the landlord is also responsible for any internal repairs.
The repair log and correspondence show the leak was reported on 11 June and attended on 12 June. The contractor required scaffolding therefore the final repair was then completed on 26 June.
The landlord’s repair policy requires repairs to be completed within 4 or 24 hours if an emergency, or 20 days if routine. The contractor visited within 24 hours. The repair was then completed after 11 working days. Therefore the repair was completed in accordance with the landlord’s policy.
In terms of the responsibility for any internal works, the landlord’s internal emails show it sought advice from its insurance team. It stated that leaseholders are responsible for internal repairs where the repair has been completed within policy timescales and where there have not been multiple repair requests over a long period of time.
The leasehold agreement also stipulates the responsibilities of the resident (clause 3.6) and the landlord (clause 4.3a-c). Interior repairs and decoration are the responsibility of the resident.
It is normal practice that, once the landlord has repaired the issue with the exterior of the building causing the leak, that ta leasehold resident is then responsible for arranging any decoration repairs to the interior of the property. This is why residents are advised to arrange their own insurance.
The presence of a leak is not evidence in itself of a failure by the landlord. The landlord is required to respond to any reports in accordance with its repairs policy and to meet its obligations under the lease agreement. The landlord did complete the required repairs to stop the leak.
Therefore the landlord has responded appropriately to the complaint about the interior decoration repairs following the leak.

Determination (decision)

I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Service:
1. There was no maladministration in the response to the complaint about the beeping fire alarm.
2. There was no maladministration in the response to the complaint about the contractor’s reported visits.
3. There was no maladministration in the response to the complaint about the communal cleaning.
4. There was no maladministration in the response to the complaint about the communal door.
5. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the management of the refuse store.
6. There was no maladministration in the response to complaint about the frequency of service charge invoices and account statements.
7. There was no maladministration in the response to the complaint about the handling of the ongoing anti-social behaviour.
8. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the complaint about the interior decoration following the roof leak.

Orders and recommendations

As a result of the determination above I have order that within 4 weeks the landlord will:
1. Pay the resident £50 to acknowledge the inconvenience of their report about the bins in June 2020 not having a clear response; and the inconvenience of having to chase the matter through the complaint procedure before a response was given.
I have also recommended that:
1. The landlord should provide specific information about any visits or actions (such as dates, or what repairs have been completed) when using those visits as supporting information in a formal complaint response. This is based on the assessment of the response to the complaint about the reported fire alarm bleeping.