East End Homes Limited (202316016)

Decision
Case ID	202316016
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	East End Homes Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Leaseholder
Date	6 November 2025

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. She raised concerns regarding the repairs, cleaning, and security of the car park in which she parked her car. The landlord is the management company, but a management agent is responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the car park.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the underground car park at the block. These include:
1. reports of repairs to the underground car park gates.
2. reports of cleaning and maintenance standards at the car park.
3. reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and security concerns.
4. service charge enquiries.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. concerns about the underground car park at the block.
2. complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

In summary, we found the landlord:
1. delayed its response to the resident unreasonably and without explanation.
2. failed to provide enough detail to fully address and respond to the concerns raised.
3. did not provide an evidence-based response to support its responses which highlighted a lack of accountability and responsibility for the issues raised.
4. did not communicate a timeline to the resident for the actions agreed.
5. did not comply with its complaint policy,
6. did not recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience to the resident because of its delayed responses to her. It failed to offer reasonable redress.

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.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 04 December 2025
2	Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £500 made up as follows: £400 for time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failings in relation to the resident’s concerns regarding the car park. £100 for time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of payment by the due date.	No later than 04 December 2025
3	Action order The landlord must contact the resident to find out if she has any outstanding concerns about the service charges and provide a written response to her.	No later than 04 December 2025

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our recommendations
The landlord should provide the resident with its liability insurance details and any supporting information for her to decide if she wants to claim on the landlord’s liability insurance for the damage to her car and theft of bicycles.
The landlord should liaise with the managing agent and provide the resident with written confirmation as to the frequency and scope of cleaning.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
17 January 2023 – 26 January 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord. She referred to a letter sent in June 2021 about car parking issues which she said the landlord did not respond to. She said the issues were ongoing and little to no progress had been made. She raised concerns about the car park which included the security and safety, the cleanliness, leaks, and repairs to the gates. She also raised service charges and the sinking fund queries.
15 May 2023 to 5 June 2023	The resident wrote to the landlord. She said it had not responded to her 2 previous letters. She said the situation had worsened. She said the car park gates had been open since November 2022 and allowed access to criminals. She referred to ASB, fly tipping, drug activity and theft which she said had cost her and other leaseholders hundreds of pounds and increased insurance premiums. She said she believed the landlord should cover the costs due to negligence. She said she and other leaseholders did not feel safe and asked for the gates to be fixed and a plan to partially or fully fund the damage to belongings.
19 September 2023	The resident complained to the landlord about the security of the car park. She confirmed a site visit had occurred to look at options for increasing security, but no improvements had been made.
5 October 2023	The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It said: it had met the resident on 23 June 2023 then asked its ASB contractor to visit the site after 9pm. It confirmed the visits were taking place. it expected residents to have vehicle insurance for losses or damage. the managing agent visited site with a contractor on 6 September 2023, and it was waiting for a proposal for possible security work. It confirmed the gate was fully operational. the managing agent was responsible for the cleaning. It said this was done weekly or more often if needed and there was a hotline for reporting matters. there had been leaks but repairs had been completed where needed. It said reports of leaks should be reported directly to it, and if there were current leaks a second phase of repairs would be done in 2023 to 2024. any reduction in costs during 2020 and 2021 would be reflected in the actual charges. It said the sinking fund provided financial resources to cover future repairs including works that may be done to improve security of the car park. it partially upheld the complaint due to the lack of responses in June 2021, January 2023 and May 2023, but said it was satisfied the issues raised had been responded to in various email exchanges and in the meeting on 23 June 2023.
20 November 2023	The resident escalated her complaint with the landlord. She said: its response did not detail any resolution for the issues raised and she wanted to know how they would be resolved as there had been little to no progress since June 2023. it did not address compensating leaseholders for losses incurred due to its failures in providing services they pay for. a meeting had been held with a security firm in September 2023 but no follow up had been provided or improvements implemented. the work needed was beyond the scope of the managing agent and the landlord needed to allocate funds to implement the improvements needed. there were ongoing issues with security, damage to cars, cleanliness, leaks, and outstanding questions regarding the sinking fund.
12 February 2024	The landlord provided its final complaint response. It confirmed the outcome of the resident’s review meeting which focussed on the security of the car park and compensation. It confirmed the discussions held for each point raised and provided an action plan of what was agreed.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident advised the issues relating to the security of the car park were ongoing.

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.

Complaint	Concerns about the underground car park at the block
Finding	Maladministration

The resident has stated the issues with the car park have been ongoing since 2021 and there is evidence of a letter sent in June 2021 which confirms this. However, based on the evidence seen by us, and when the resident complained in September 2023, this assessment will focus on events linked to the complaint, between January 2023 and 12 February 2024, the date of the final complaint response.

Car park gates

The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2023 highlighting the same issues raised in June 2021. She said the gates on both sides of the car park had not been repaired and had been open for around 2 months. This had resulted in illegal parking, ASB and other concerning activities.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord apologised for the delay in acknowledging receipt of the email on 17 January 2023. It said the housing manager and head of asset management were investigating the issues. As the landlord had been put on notice of the gate issue, it ought to have reported the repairs to the managing agent so the necessary repairs could be completed in line with the repair timescales. There is no evidence it did this, nor is there evidence of any repairs to the gates. The landlord’s lack of action was not appropriate. It failed to demonstrate it met its obligations as the managing company of the car park.
On 7 March 2023 the resident spent time and trouble pursuing the landlord for a response to her letter. The landlord confirmed the matters were being discussed at a board meeting on 15 March 2023, but there is no evidence it provided the resident with an update after the meeting. This was a communication failure.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 May 2023 and 5 June 2023 when she confirmed the gates were still open. There is no evidence the landlord responded and no evidence of any repairs being completed. This is a further failure by the landlord which is likely to have caused frustration for the resident.
The landlord met the resident on 23 June 2023. While it stated in its stage 1 complaint response that it provided a response to the resident’s concerns during this meeting, we have not seen any evidence of what was discussed, agreed, or who was going to take responsibility for any of the actions. Furthermore, there is no evidence the landlord communicated the outcome of the meeting to the resident. This is a communication failure and makes it difficult for us to assess if the landlord did respond to the resident’s concerns, and if it made progress on any of the actions agreed. This was not reasonable.
The resident met with the landlord again sometime in August 2023. As above, we have not seen evidence of what was discussed or agreed in relation the car park gates, nor is there evidence of any communication or agreed action plan to the resident. This was a communication and record keeping failure by the landlord.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord confirmed the gates were fully operational, but there is no evidence to confirm when the repairs were completed. This is a record keeping failure which makes it difficult for us to assess if the landlord and managing agent met its repair obligations.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it confirmed the managing agent’s repair response times. It referred to an extensive pigeon infestation, and contractors refusing to work in the area until the infestation was addressed as a reason why it took a prolonged time to repair the gates. This is noted, however there is no evidence to confirm the timeline from when the repairs were reported to when the repairs were completed. This is a failure by the landlord who should have a system in place to monitor the managing agent’s performance and highlight any areas of learning and service improvement. The lack of records meant the landlord could not confirm how long the gates were out of operation, nor could it assess the impact on this resident or any others affected. This was not reasonable.

Cleaning and maintenance standards at the car park

The resident raised her concerns about the cleaning and maintenance of the car park in January 2023, May 2023 and September 2023. She said the cleaning was sporadic in terms of timing and quality, the netting on the windows was missing which allowed rubbish to blow in from the street, and there was on ongoing leak that was causing damage. While the managing agent may be responsible for the cleaning and maintenance of the car park, there is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence the landlord responded to these concerns until its stage 1 complaint response, 8 months later. It said the car park was cleaned weekly as part of the managing agent contract, however it did not demonstrate an investigation or provide evidence to confirm it was being completed as expected. This was a shortcoming by the landlord and did little to reassure the resident who included the issue in her complaint escalation. She asked for reports to confirm the cleaning was being done.
In terms of the leaks, the landlord said repairs had been completed where required, however we have not seen any evidence to support this. This is a record keeping failure and makes it difficult for us to determine if the landlord and managing agent met its repair obligations. Furthermore, to reassure the resident the repairs had been completed, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have included more detail on when the leak was reported, when the repairs were completed and what these entailed. There is no evidence the landlord did this. There is no evidence of any further leaks being reported therefore we assume this matter was resolved.
The resident continued to report the standard of cleaning and nets on the windows through to December 2023. The landlord visited the car park on 3 January 2024. It asked the managing agent to investigate the cleaning, and the managing agent said it was cleaned every month by a cleaning contractor. This was not consistent with the stage 1 complaint response that said it was done weekly, and the final complaint response that said it was done on a routine basis. The lack of consistent responses highlighted the landlord’s lack of knowledge regarding the contract and is likely to have frustrated the resident further. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to confirm this in writing with the resident.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said it would ask the managing agent what level of evidence could be provided by the cleaning contractor to confirm the completion of the cleaning. It also agreed to discuss the netting at the window with the managing agent. This was positive, but it did not confirm how or when it would provide feedback to the resident. This left her unclear as to when or if she would receive an update. This was a communication failure by the landlord.

Reports of ASB and security concerns

The resident has referred to damage to her car and the theft of bicycles while in the car park. We can consider whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to belongings. These are matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide its public liability insurance information to the resident so she can decide whether or not to submit a claim.
The resident raised concerns from January 2023 through to the final complaint response in February 2024. She referred to theft of bicycles, vandalism to cars, and illegal parking all within the car park. She referred to the previous requests for the landlord to investigate the problems which had been ignored. There is no evidence the landlord responded until sometime in August 2023 when it met the resident on site. This was not reasonable and was a communication failure.
The landlord provided the resident with information about proposed ASB patrols to blocks by a security firm. It explained the logistics of the patrols, how it used information from various sources, and provided a link to its website for more information. This was reasonable and demonstrated one route of tackling ASB, however the resident confirmed the leasehold board was not willing to opt into the patrols and instead, asked what measures it had in place for the break ins, theft, fly tipping and vandalism. She said she had contacted the local authority who had advised the landlord was responsible.
The landlord quoted the lease which states it covenants the managing agent “to do or cause to be done such works installations acts matters and things as may the management company’s reasonable discretion be necessary or advisable for the proper management security safety and administration of the property and the block…” While it said it did not believe it was responsible for responding to incidents of ASB within the blocks, it said regardless of the contractual position, it required partnership working to address the ASB. It suggested quarterly meetings with the relevant agencies to address the issues raised. This was a reasonable proposal to tackling ASB.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had asked its ASB contractor to visit the car park after 9pm. It said a report dated 1 August 2023 confirmed the visits were taking place. It did not however confirm the outcome of the patrols, what it had done with any incidents reported, how long the visits would continue for, or if the resident would receive any feedback. This was a communication failure by the landlord and did not reassure the resident that it was acting on ASB reports received.
At the stage 2 review meeting the resident referred to the ongoing security concerns, poor CCTV systems and asked how the landlord intended on improving security to stop the ASB. In its final complaint response, the landlord committed to obtaining a security plan for the car park. It agreed to look at improvements to the CCTV, confirming if the timer on the roller shutter could be adjusted to stop tailgating, and completing the improvement work on the remaining bike stores. This was a reasonable, but it did not confirm a timescale for any of the tasks, or for communicating with the resident. This was a shortcoming and a communication failure by the landlord.

Service charge enquiries

We do not investigate complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Furthermore, we cannot order a landlord to refund any charges back to a resident. This report will therefore focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
On 17 January 2023 the resident asked the landlord to confirm the total in the sinking fund and the amount saved during Covid-19 when the cleaning was not done. She asked for the excess in the reserve fund to be refunded to the leaseholders affected. There is no evidence the landlord responded. The resident spent time and effort repeating her requests on 15 May 2023 and in her complaint in September 2023. This was not reasonable as the resident should not have had to raise a complaint to get a response to her query. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident on 5 October 2023, 10 months after the initial request. It said any reduction in costs during 2020 and 2021 would be reflected in the actual charges levied. It confirmed the sinking fund was intended to provide financial resources to cover future repairs including those that may be done to improve the security of the car park. This may have been the case, but the landlord did not respond to the resident’s request which is likely to have caused further frustration for her. The resident included the issue in her complaint escalation when she also requested a refund for the period the access gates were open when damage was caused to belongings. The landlord explained it did not have reserves for paying for damages to vehicles while parked in the car park but failed to provide a response to the resident in enough detail to provide a customer-focussed resolution. This was not reasonable.
Considering the above, we find maladministration. This is because the landlord:
1. took too long to respond to the resident which resulted in her spending avoidable time and effort chasing it for updates.
2. did not recognise or acknowledge its delayed responses at any stage and failed to offer any reasonable redress.
3. did not demonstrate a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns. There was a lack of records relating to repairs, cleaning and ASB which meant there was a lack of evidence to support and confirm the managing agent was meeting its contractual obligations.
4. provided inconsistent responses regarding the frequency of the cleaning of the car park.
5. placed full responsibility on the managing agent to respond to repairs, cleaning and incidents of ASB, yet as the freeholder it ought to have been monitoring the managing agent’s performance.
6. provided an action plan for future actions but did not give an indicative timescale or confirm when it would provide the resident with an update.
In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £400. This is for a finding of maladministration where the landlord had failed to acknowledge its failings and has made no attempt to put things right. This sum reflects the likely time, trouble and inconvenience experienced by the resident over an extended period of over two years.

Complaint	The response to the complaint
Finding	Maladministration

The resident complained to the landlord on 19 September 2023. It acknowledged it on 27 September 2023 and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 October 2023. The responses were not in line with the landlord’s complaint policy which states it would acknowledge receipt within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days. While the delay is unlikely to have had any serious detriment on the resident or the outcome of the complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate the delays to the resident. There is no evidence it did this. Considering the lack of response to previous correspondence, this is likely to have caused frustration for the resident.
The landlord’s response lacked detail. It noted the areas the managing agent was responsible for, but as a landlord, it lacked accountability, responsibility, detail, and evidence to demonstrate a full investigation had been done to address the issues raised and to support its response.
The resident escalated the complaint on 20 November 2023. The landlord acknowledged it on 24 November 2023 and confirmed the complaint would be considered at a review meeting within the next 20 working days. This was appropriate and in line with the policy. However, on 13 December 2023 it told the resident it would not be possible to schedule the meeting within the timescale given and asked her for availability in January 2024. The landlord’s communication to the resident was reasonable.
The review meeting was held on 25 January 2024. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 12 February 2024, 12 working days after the meeting, and 57 working days after it was received. The landlord communicated the delay in the review meeting to the resident, but it failed to address this in its response. It did not recognise the time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay or offer any redress to put things right. This was not reasonable.
The landlord’s final response addressed the points raised by the resident in the review meeting. It did however miss a further opportunity to demonstrate it had completed an in-depth investigation or provide reassurance to the resident that it had seen evidence to support its response, particularly concerning repair timescales and cleaning logs. It failed to communicate a follow-up to the resident and set her expectations as to when it would provide her with an update. For example, it included an agreed list of actions to be followed up after the review meeting but did not provide an indicative timescale for these. This was a communication failure by the resident.
Considering the above, we find maladministration. The landlord did not comply with its policy, its responses were delayed, and they lacked detail which did not provide reassurance to the resident that it would progress the issues raised. It failed to address the delays at either stage of the process and did not offer any redress or highlight any learning to prevent a recurrence. In line with our remedies guidance, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation.

Learning

If a landlord agrees a set of actions with a resident it should aim to provide indicative timeframes as to when it will provide an update. This will help set the resident’s expectations and reduce the time and effort spent by the resident pursuing responses.