ForHousing Limited (202209052)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209052

ForHousing Limited

31 July 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding:
    1. Service charges for the maintenance and upkeep of communal areas not being provided.
    2. A tree blocking light.
    3. The landlord’s complaint handling. 

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and bought the lease in October 2003 from the local council. The landlord, a housing association, took over the resident’s lease from the local council. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
  2. The resident enquired about service charges on 26 February 2021. She asked the landlord for account statements. The landlord provided this on 5 March 2021.
  3. On 8 October 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again and asked if there was a reduction in the service charges because of COVID-19 and national lockdown. She wanted reasoning for the level of the service charge and where to go further if she believed the charges were unreasonable. The landlord replied on 12 October 2021 and said there was no reduction in charges, and the majority of services were still completed. It noted that only cleaning was paused for roughly 2 weeks, but missed visits were made up by additional cleans by its contractor.
  4. Within the email of 12 October 2021, the landlord also told the resident about its formal complaints process and the First-tier Tribunal if she remained unhappy or wanted to dispute the charges. The resident replied on 18 October 2021 asking the landlord to be more transparent about the charges and non-service. The resident stated the landlord should not interpret her request for information as a complaint. On 21 October 2021 the landlord confirmed there was no disruption to the service and its contractors had attended the block.
  5. The resident had spoken with the landlord on 26 May 2022 about a tree blocking light. On 30 May 2023 the landlord told her it would not cut the branches. On the same day, she sent images of the tree to the landlord. To which the landlord responded that it did not appear the tree was touching the property but its team would assess.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 12 June 2022 about the tree and when the block was last inspected as she said it had been poorly maintained. As she had not received a response to her complaint, she contacted this Service on 31 July 2022. We discussed her complaint, clarified addresses, and put forward her complaint to the landlord on 26 October 2022.
  7. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response sent to the resident on 3 November 2022, said it had responded to her about service charges on 21 October 2021 and 31 May 2022. The pause in services because of COVID-19 did not affect her block. It told her about the option to challenge service charges through the First-tier Tribunal. It stated its team completes a full block inspection every quarter and a contractor inspects all blocks each week for excessive fly tipping. The landlord said no repair reports were made by the resident, but it was happy to investigate it if she provided more details. It also told her that the tree would not be cut for just light obstruction. If the tree was close or hitting the block, it would assess any repairs, but this was not the case here. It assesses all the trees every 5 years, and its ground maintenance teams carry out checks.
  8. On 14 November 2022 the resident said she was unsure whether the landlord had read her complaint of 12 June 2022. She contacted the landlord twice on 30 May 2022 but received an out of office response, but no reply other than that until a paper copy version was received on 31 May 2022. She said by asking her for further information about repairs, the landlord demonstrated it had not assessed the upkeep and maintenance of the property. She received no response and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 1 December 2022. She chased a response to her complaint on 22 December 2022. She asked this Service for help on 6 March 2023. We contacted the landlord on 6 March 2023 and 23 May 2023, asking it to provide a final response.
  9. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was sent to the resident on 25 May 2023. The landlord confirmed the same level of service was undertaken despite COVID-19. It attached the service log. It reiterated the level of service provision, and that the condition of the block is inspected on a quarterly basis and through a contractor for fly tipping, waste, and general block condition. It said the resident had not reported the quality of the cleaning during COVID-19 lockdown periods. In terms of the tree blocking light, it reiterated its response from its stage 1 complaint response. Further, it provided a breakdown of annual service charges, cleaning schedules and the email trail between the landlord and her. It also recognised it did not escalate her complaint initially and awarded £50 for the delay.
  10. The resident told this Service on 5 June 2023 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On 19 June 2023 she confirmed she wanted us to investigate her complaint.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. The principles of effective dispute resolution are:
    1. Be fair, treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42d of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent, or service charge increase.
  2. The resident has expressed dissatisfaction around the level of service charge to the landlord. While the Ombudsman can consider how a landlord responds to service charge queries or provides service charge information, the First-tier Tribunal is more appropriate to consider disputes about the level of service charges. In line with paragraph 42d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s communication and whether she received the service she was paying for. However, the resident may wish to seek independent advice regarding pursuing the complaint through the First-tier Tribunal or other legal processes.

Service charges

  1. Under the provisions of the lease, the resident is to pay the landlord service charges and management fees. The lease also sets out the resident is to keep in good repair and condition largely the interior of the property. Whereas the landlord is to keep in good repair the exterior and structure of the property, including common areas, gutters, drains, pipes.
  2. For the avoidance of doubt, the service charges are annual and comprised of various services, including management fees. The resident receives an estimate of the annual service charges and from the evidence provided, not all services are chargeable every year. In 2020–21 she paid £470.70 in total service charges. In 2021–22, she paid £461.59. In 2022–23 she paid £549.57.
  3. The resident said that despite being liable to pay for service charges, limited service had taken place during national lockdown because of COVID-19 in 2020 and 2021. While landlords are entitled to contract third parties to provide services which it is responsible for, the landlord is ultimately obliged to ensure the services are provided properly and to a good standard. It is, therefore, expected that landlords acknowledge difficulties faced during lockdown and manage its contracts accordingly.
  4. It is unreasonable for residents to pay for services they are not receiving. However, this Service has seen evidence that all services paid for had been carried out throughout this period by the landlord, and there were multiple attendances by its contractors throughout. The landlord had also shared its contractors’ attendances with the resident and clarified in its final response that her services were not disrupted which was reasonable.
  5. Additionally, when the resident first enquired about the service charges in October 2021, she received a response from the landlord which confirmed there would be no reduction in the service charges and it also informed her of the First-tier Tribunal, which was reasonable action.
  6. At the time of her initial enquiry in February 2021 and October 2021, the resident had not said the quality of services that were carried out were poor. When she complained about it in June 2022, she mentioned communal areas that may require repair. The landlord asked for further information regarding this in its stage 1 complaint response, as it would log the repairs subject to more details, which was reasonable. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had supplied further information to the landlord about what repairs were required. The landlord also stated there were no reports of repair issues prior to June 2022 and this Service had not been provided evidence that the resident reported these specific issues to the landlord prior to her complaint.
  7. Further, the landlord told the resident that its teams and contractors inspect the block and no further issues had been documented. It noted the frequency of its internal teams’ visits to the resident’s block, which was fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the complaint.
  8. Overall, the resident was aware that service charges would be payable from the outset. The landlord was transparent about the service charges. It had since been clarified by the landlord to the resident that services continued during COVID-19. Ultimately this Service has seen evidence that services had taken place during national lockdown as expected. We have not identified any service failures by the landlord in terms of the service charges. As such, this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding service charges for the maintenance and upkeep of communal areas not being provided.

A tree blocking light

  1. The landlord’s contractors will ensure that the trees it manages meets legal requirements. Additionally, it follows British Standards Institution ‘BS 3998’ for tree works. The landlord says that its policy for inspecting trees is every 5 years.
  2. The resident first contacted the landlord about a tree blocking light on 26 May 2022. She asked if the branches could be cut as she was having to turn the internal lights on for brightness. The landlord responded on 30 May 2022 stating it would not undertake work for light issues. If the tree was close or hitting the property, some work may be done but it would have to assess first. The resident attached pictures of the tree and the landlord told her it was not touching the property, but its team would assess further.
  3. There was evidence that the landlord inspected the tree appropriately in line with its 5-year policy in 2020. An additional site survey was conducted on 3 May 2022, 23 calendar days before the resident’s reports. No concerns had been documented. However, based on the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the specific tree and assess if it was breaching regulations.
  4. Although the landlord provided further commentary to the resident’s concerns in its complaint responses, the landlord had not documented that a further inspection of the tree was carried out until 17 January 2024. The inspection confirmed that there were no concerns with the proximity of the tree to the building and the health and stability of the tree. While this was the case, it was over 1 year and 7 months since the resident reported issues. While the landlord found no issues, not inspecting the tree for this duration was unfair and unreasonable in the circumstances.
  5. While this Service has not found that the landlord breached regulations, there was a severe delay between the resident’s initial report and its inspection. In the circumstances, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations by telling her that its team would assess the images sent by her. She had expended time and trouble taking images of the tree and sending this to the landlord, as well as chasing it for a response afterwards. The landlord missed early opportunities to resolve this matter with clear communication and confirming whether it would or would not take any action.
  6. As such, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a tree blocking light. Orders have been made that consider the time and trouble expended by the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory from 1 April 2024. At the time of the complaint, the Code in place was from 1 April 2022, landlords had until 1 October 2022 to self-assess and become compliant with the Code.
  2. The resident first complained directly to the landlord on 12 June 2022. This was received and acknowledged by it on 14 June 2022. She was told by the landlord that a response would be provided in 3 to 5 working days.
  3. The landlord’s complaints policy at the time had 3 stages. An informal stage, stage 1, and stage 2. In the informal stage it aimed to resolve complaints in 2 working days. At stage 1, it would provide a response in 10 working days. At stage 2 it would respond in 5 working days when a complaints panel was not required. The landlord has told this Service that to have become compliant with the Code in 2022, it introduced a new policy in November 2022, removing the informal stage.
  4. The resident had not heard from the landlord and asked for this Service’s intervention on 31 July 2022. The landlord did not send its stage 1 complaint response until 3 November 2022. In terms of timeliness, this was 101 working days after the landlord first received the resident’s complaint, which was inappropriate and not in line with the Code. It was also outside of its 10-working day commitment set out in its policy.
  5. Ultimately had the landlord searched its systems it would have found the resident’s initial compliant, prior to our intervention. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. It had not proactively communicated with the resident about the status of her complaint either. Therefore, this was a service failure by the landlord.
  6. Under this Service’s remedies guidance, consideration is given for distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure, considering the severity of the situation and the length of time involved.
  7. The landlord sent its final response 119 working days after her initial escalation request on 1 December 2022. This too was not appropriate and outside the timescales set out in the Code, and the landlord’s policy, which caused inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord recognised in its final response that the resident escalated her complaint and it failed to action the request in time. It apologised and offered £50 for the delay. While the landlord was attempting to put things right, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion it had not acknowledged all the delays and the level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the detriment to the resident.
  8. The Ombudsman expects the landlord to have communicated clearly with the resident and agree timescales when it would not meet its targeted response times. In this scenario, the landlord failed to proactively communicate with the resident throughout her complaint journey and on both occasions responded only after this Service’s intervention, which was not appropriate and unfair to the resident.
  9. Additionally, when the resident complained directly to the landlord in June 2022, she said the landlord’s staff member was not communicating effectively and was unprofessional. The Code stated that landlords must set out their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking in its complaint acknowledgement. If any aspect of the complaint is unclear, the resident must be asked for clarification and the full definition agreed between both parties.
  10. The Code also stated landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Therefore, it was expected that the landlord clarifies with the resident if she was complaining about staff conduct.
  11. Where a resident reports inappropriate behaviour from a member of the landlord’s staff, the landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to verify the resident’s allegations. It is expected the landlord adequately investigate and respond to the complaint, and take proportionate action based on the information available. The landlord had not explored this option with the resident, despite knowing her expression of dissatisfaction in June 2022, which was unreasonable. She was also distressed as the staff member conducted the stage 1 complaint response.
  12. It is clear the resident’s complaint journey has been affected because of the landlord’s failings. Due to the length of time taken to provide complaint responses, the resident was delayed in referring her complaint to this Service. She also expressed to this Service she had lost faith in the landlord’s ability to communicate with her, this demonstrates a relationship breakdown between the parties.
  13. Although the landlord attempted to put things right, it had not acknowledged all its failings and had not demonstrated it learned from outcomes in its final response. Therefore, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns of its complaint handling constitutes maladministration. Orders to put things right have been made that take into consideration the landlord’s poor communication, as well as knowledge, and information management. Also the inconvenience caused to the resident, including time and trouble.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding service charges for the maintenance and upkeep of communal areas not being provided.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding a tree blocking light.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident’s bank account, compensation totalling £200, comprised of:
      1. £50 for the time and trouble expended by the resident regarding a tree blocking light.
      2. £150 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures and the detriment caused to the resident.

If any of the £50 previously offered in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response had been paid, it can be deducted from this total.

  1. Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, if the landlord has not done so already, it must review and self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023.
  2. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with all the above orders to this Service.