Gateway Housing Association Limited (202336992)

Background

1. The resident lives in a flat which is located within a block of flats. Her building and the land surrounding it, including a private road, is owned and managed by the landlord. The resident complained to the landlord about the standard of cyclical work it completed in 2017 and its approach to maintaining the building. She said the building required repair, particularly windows, balconies and paintwork. She also complained that the landlord had removed car parking controls from its private road and had delayed in repairing streetlights on it.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Oversight of cyclical work in 2017.
   2. Response to building repair and maintenance concerns.
   3. Handling of car parking arrangements.
   4. Handling of streetlight repairs.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The complaint about the landlord’s oversight of cyclical work in 2017 is outside our jurisdiction.
5. There was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to building repair and maintenance concerns.
6. The landlord provided reasonable redress to the complaint about its handling of car parking arrangements.
7. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of streetlight repairs.
8. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

Oversight of cyclical work in 2017

9. 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. We have not investigated this complaint as too much time had passed between the issue arising in 2017 and the resident raising a formal complaint in 2023.

Response to building repair and maintenance concerns

10. The landlord failed to thoroughly investigate the concerns reported by the resident in line with its repairs policy. This was a significant failing given the reported issues included potential health and safety risks relating to windows and balconies. Its communications with the resident in relation to the timing of cyclical works was also poor.

Handling of car parking arrangements

11. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that its communication with the resident about car parking was poor. It apologised and reasonably compensated her.

Handling of streetlight repairs

12. The landlord failed to provide the resident with timely and accurate information about when it would complete repairs to streetlights.

Handling of the complaint

13. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy.

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.

14. 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 formally complained in November 2023 that the landlord had failed to oversee its contractor had completed all cyclical works to a good standard in 2017. She said it should not have paid the contractor in full from leaseholders’ service charge funds. While she told us she raised this issue with the landlord numerous times in the 6 years prior to her complaint, she did not raise it as a formal complaint. We have seen no evidence she was prevented from doing so. For that reason, we have not considered the complaint about the landlord’s oversight of cyclical work in 2017.
15. Even if we had investigated this issue, we would not be able to assess whether the cost reclaimed from leaseholders through service charges was reasonable. Such an assessment falls within the remit of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). We have signposted the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service website which provides more information about the work and remit of the Tribunal.

16. The landlord is required by the resident’s lease to keep the building, including all window frames and balconies, in “such repair as is reasonable” for its age. The resident contributes to the landlord’s costs by paying a service charge.
17. The landlord has a repairs policy which states it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. However, provided it is not an emergency or urgent repair, the policy enables it to postpone and complete any repair as part of a planned maintenance programme. It states that the landlord will, “establish and maintain a comprehensive programme of service contracts, cyclical works, major repairs and planned maintenance.”
18. The resident suggested within her complaint that her building was in poor condition. She said paintwork was peeling and window frames were “rotting and deforming”. She said she had reported this 16 times previously and asked the landlord to inspect the building, but it had not done so. The landlord has not provided us with full records of the resident’s previous contact, but it did not dispute her account in its complaint responses. We have therefore investigated on the basis her summary of her communications is accurate.
19. Upon receiving her reports, the landlord should have inspected the building to assess whether repairs were required and, if so, how urgent they were. It could then have made an evidence-based decision about whether or not the repairs could wait until it next carried out cyclical works. We have seen no evidence that it did this prior to, or during, the complaints process.
20. This is particularly concerning given the resident reported window frames were rotting throughout the multi-storey building. Damaged windows may contribute to a range of hazards identified by the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The hazards include damp and mould, excess cold, entry by intruders, noise, pests and various physical injuries. It is therefore critical that landlords take prompt action to investigate reports of damage to window frames. In this case, the landlord failed to do so.
21. The landlord should similarly have taken prompt action to inspect balconies in the building when the resident reported during its stage 2 investigation they were “deteriorating”. Instead, it suggested in its stage 2 response that it would survey the building for any outstanding repair issues when developing a scope of works for its future cyclical works. It provided no estimation of when it might carry out that survey. That it did not carry out a preliminary assessment of the windows and balconies to determine if they could await its later survey, was a significant failing.
22. A further failing by the landlord was its communications with the resident in relation to its timetable for the cyclical works. The resident’s lease and its repairs policy did not specify how often it would carry out such works to the building. However, within her escalation request, the resident outlined her understanding that it would do so every 6 years. Her understanding aligns with the landlord’s website which suggests it will complete cyclical works to leaseholder buildings every 5 to 6 years on a rolling programme.
23. This does not compel the landlord to complete cyclical works every 6 years and there are various justifiable reasons why it may delay the works. However, if it has created an expectation amongst residents that it will complete works within a certain timeframe, it should notify them of any delays to this. If it is maintaining a “comprehensive programme” of planned works as required by its repairs policy, it should be able to advise them of revised provisional dates.
24. In this case, it was over 6 years after the last set of cyclical works before the resident raised her complaint. We have seen no evidence the landlord proactively wrote to her prior to this to advise there were going to be delays to it completing cyclical works. This was despite her being in regular contact with it to raise concerns about the condition of her building. Within its complaint responses it acknowledged the cyclical works were delayed, but it did not explain why this was. It suggested it would carry out the works within the next financial year (2024 to 2025). However, it did not follow through on this commitment and it has not yet carried out any cyclical works.
25. The landlord recently told us that, subject to finance and consultation with residents, it intends to carry out cyclical works to the building within the next year. It said that it might include the replacement of windows and balconies within the scope of works “once surveys complete”. This suggests that in the 2 years that have passed since the resident complained, it has still not thoroughly inspected the windows and balconies.
26. Given this, we have ordered the landlord to survey the building, with a particular focus on windows and balconies. It should advise the resident of its findings. It should also inform her of its intended timeframe for formally consulting with leaseholders in line with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Through the section 20 consultation process, the landlord will be required to provide all leaseholders with more detail about its proposed scope of works and costs. Leaseholders will then have an opportunity to share their views on its proposals.
27. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £600. This is to compensate her for distress, inconvenience, and the significant amount of time she has spent in corresponding with it over building repair and maintenance issues.

28. The landlord owns a private road that leads from the resident’s building to the public road. The road does not form part of the communal areas, referred to in the lease as “the estate”, which she pays the landlord a service charge to maintain. Her lease grants her a right to “use” the road, but it does not specify what that use may entail. It does not grant her any express rights to park on it. The lease imposes no obligations on the landlord in terms of maintaining the road or providing services on it, such as parking enforcement.
29. The landlord was therefore entitled to end its parking enforcement contract in May 2023 and was not obligated by the lease to notify or consult the resident before doing so. Although it granted residents permits to park on its road, it advised us it did not charge them for this or the parking enforcement contract. In other words, there was no separate contractual arrangement outside the lease requiring it to put parking controls in place.
30. However, through custom and practice, residents had come to rely on the landlord implementing parking controls. Without such controls the permit system, which the landlord voluntarily introduced, became meaningless. It was therefore unreasonable, in our view, that it did not notify residents in advance that it was ending its parking enforcement contract. It was also unreasonable that it did not respond to the resident’s queries, prior to her complaint, about why it ended the contract and its future plans.
31. The landlord acknowledged in both its complaint responses that its communications were poor and that it “could” have notified residents before ending the contract. Although this was qualified in that it said it could, rather than should, have notified residents, we acknowledge it was under no obligation to do so. We are satisfied it accepted its communications overall could have been better and that this was a learning point it would take from the complaint. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we consider the £50 compensation it offered was reasonable for its poor communication on this specific issue. It has since paid this compensation.
32. The landlord indicated within its complaint responses that it was considering options for future parking controls and that it would likely tender for a new enforcement contract. It committed to consult with residents when preparing the tender. We do not know if it did so, however, the resident told us that by 2025 parking enforcement had resumed. We are therefore satisfied that the landlord has now resolved this matter.

33. The resident complained that streetlights on the landlord’s private road had not been working for several months. The road did not form part of “the estate” the landlord was obliged to maintain under the lease and for which the resident paid a service charge. Although the lease granted the resident a right to use the road, it imposed no obligation on the landlord to provide, or keep in repair, lighting along it.
34. However, while it may not have been legally obligated to the resident under the lease to repair the streetlights, as landowner it was responsible for them. It was therefore reasonable for the resident to expect it to provide timely and accurate responses to her enquiries about streetlight repairs. It failed to do so. By the time of the resident’s complaint, the lights had not been working for 2 months. She said she had asked the landlord for updates 4 times previously, but it did not provide a clear response.
35. The landlord acknowledged in its complaint responses that its communications with the resident had been poor. It apologised for the “confusion and mismanagement” in relation to the streetlight repairs. However, rather than resolve the issue, its stage 2 response added to the confusion as it suggested the repairs were complete. They were not.
36. This led to the resident sending the landlord numerous more emails over the next 2 months about the streetlights, before it successfully repaired them. She initially contacted it to say that its records were incorrect and the lights had not been repaired as it suggested in its stage 2 response. It accepted this and arranged for its contractor to attend to the repairs. However, when the contractor attended, it could not complete the repair as it had not brought lightbulbs with it. It did not inform the resident of this which led to her spending more time asking it why it had not yet fixed the lights. The contractor returned weeks later and replaced some lightbulbs. However, the resident then spent more time contacting the landlord to point out that the contractor had replaced the lightbulbs on the wrong side of the road.
37. That the resident had to continue to chase the landlord for updates, and it was not proactive in its communications, shows it had not learnt from the complaint. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies, we have ordered it to pay her £100 compensation. This is to recognise the time and trouble she spent in pursuing it for updates about the streetlight repairs.

38. The landlord has a complaints policy that aligns with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The policy states it must acknowledge complaints and escalation requests within 5 working days of receipt. It must then issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days and stage 2 response within 20 working days.
39. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, issued its stage 1 response and acknowledged the escalation request within its policy timeframes. It would have sent its stage 2 response within 20 working days of its acknowledgement, but it mistyped the resident’s email address so she did not receive it. This administrative error led to the resident contacting it after 21 working days and asking it to issue the stage 2 response. It resent her its response the same day. Its prompt action to rectify its mistake means we are satisfied the short delay of one day caused the resident no overall detriment.

Learning

Complaints about windows

40. We have published an open letter to landlords in which we encouraged them to proactively review how they handle window complaints. We have also published our expectations of landlords when dealing with such complaints. We encourage the landlord to review this guidance which is available on our website.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

41. The landlord provided us with limited repair records that did not clearly show when, or if, it completed identified works. We encourage it to review its practice against our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which sets out best practice and makes recommendations for landlords.

Communication

42. The landlord’s communications with the resident prior to and during the complaints process were poor. It raised her expectations by saying it would complete minor repairs to lights and more significant building repairs within certain timeframes. It did not proactively update her when its plans changed. This led to her raising a complaint and contributed to both our adverse findings. We encourage it to reflect on this.