Great Places Housing Association (202212905)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212905

Great Places Housing Association

26 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of repairs to the communal areas.
2. Concern about the amount of service charge levied for communal services.
3. Request for compensation for a historic repair, and the associated complaint.
4. Concern about the time taken to complete major works at the block.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the amount of service charge levied for communal services.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the amount of service charge levied for communal services is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In March 2022, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of communal repairs. As part of her complaint the resident raised a concern about the amount of service charge residents in the block had to pay for services, she claimed, they were not receiving. When the resident asked us to investigate her complaint, in September 2022, she expressed a concern about the amount of service charge she paid, and the fact the landlord had increased her service charge for communal services.
Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
It is evident that the resident was paying a contractual charge for a services she received. Her concern that she should not pay the charges, and the reasonableness of the increase, requires a binding decision on the level of charges which should be paid. The level or reasonableness of service charges is not a matter which the Ombudsman will consider.
The appropriate body to decide such complaints is the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. It would therefore be more reasonable and effective for the resident to seek a determination on the reasonableness of the service charges from the FTT. She may wish to consider doing so if she wants to pursue the matter further.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for historic repair, and the associated complaint

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of resident’s request for compensation for historic repair, and the associated complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
The resident wrote to the landlord in June 2022, after she had exhausted its complaint procedure. She asked it to pay compensation for the “inconvenience, distress, and disruption” caused when the “gable ends” of the property collapsed “8 years” before. The resident explained that she experienced “months of disorder” and had to stay at a hotel which was “extremely inconvenient”.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion: “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
There is no evidence to indicate that the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the historic repair, or a request for compensation, at the time, or within a reasonable period of time. Neither has this Service seen evidence which indicates the resident was unable to make a complaint about the matter within a reasonable time. Due to the time that has passed since the events complained about, this Service would not be able to effectively assess the landlord’s handling of matter. As such, it is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the time taken to complete major works at the block.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the time taken to complete major works at the block is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In her letter, of June 2022, the resident also raised a concern about the time the landlord had taken to complete further major works to the “gable end” at the property. She said that the works had started in 2021, and were yet to be completed. She said the length of time taken to complete the works had caused her “18 months of distress”.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
When the resident raised her initial complaint in March 2022, she raised a concern about the landlord’s handling of various repairs to the communal areas of the property. However, this Service has seen no evidence to indicate the resident made a complaint about the length of time taken to complete the ongoing major works, at the time. As the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concern as part of a formal complaint response, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a block, and her tenancy started in October 2009. The landlord does not have any recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.

Summary of events

On 14 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to make a complaint, and said:
1. She was concerned about the “lack of maintenance” of communal areas at the property.
2. There was damaged brickwork on the posts at the car park entrance.
3. There were “weeds and bird droppings” on the paved area at the front of the building. She was of the view this was not being maintained regularly, as it should have been as part of the “maintenance contract”.
4. The front door was damaged and needed replacing, and she had been told it would be replaced with a “magnetic system” with key fobs.
5. The ground floor was in need of a “deep clean” to get rid of the “stench” caused by a spillage.
6. The communal hallway needed to be redecorated/cleaned up, as it was looking “tatty”.
7. The guttering needed clearing out to prevent the “overspill of debris”.
8. She wanted the listed issues to be “taken seriously” and resolved in a “reasonable timeframe”.
9. She felt previous concerns raised had been “met with disdain”.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 28 March 2022, and said:
1. It apologised for any inconvenience caused by the ongoing issues at the property.
2. The brickwork at the carpark entrance was rebuilt previously, but had since been knocked down by another van. It would be rebuilt after the major building work at the property was completed.
3. The paving at the front of the building was being maintained by its internal gardening service. But, due to the major building work, a “large area” was fenced off and it was unable to maintain that area. When the major works were finished, maintenance would resume as normal.
4. It had ordered the new door and entry system 2 weeks before, and the manufacturing ‘lead time’ was 12 weeks. It would let her know as soon as it had a date the door would be installed.
5. It had done a “deep clean” of the floor, and it was as clean as it could get it. Once the major works were completed, it would lay a new floor in the communal area.
6. It was aware of the need to clear the guttering, but could not complete this until after the major works were finished.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 April 2022 and said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response, and wanted it to take her complaint to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 25 May 2022, and said:
1. It had decided it was going to remove the damaged brick pillar at the carpark entrance, as it kept getting damaged.
2. It was going to install the new front door and entry system “imminently” and by the end of the month.
3. It would ask its contractors to clear the gutters.
4. It would “consider” a deep clean of the communal areas after the major works were finished. It explained there would be “little point” in doing it before, due to the amount of dust brought in by the workers coming in and out.
5. Due to concerns about the lack off communication with residents, its neighbourhood services manager was now attending “regular” meetings at the property to discuss any concerns residents had.
The landlord installed the new front door and entry system on 31 May 2022.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 September 2022, asked us to investigate her complaint, and said the landlord:
1. Had not yet completed the repairs to the guttering.
2. Had cleaned the communal area, but not redecorated.
The landlord told this Service, on 24 April 2024, that the guttering work was completed on 16 January 2023.

Assessment and findings

Relevant obligations policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairs to communal areas. The responsive repairs policy also states that for major works it communicates expected timescales to residents. The policy says it has 2 main categories of repair, which are:
1. Emergency: which it will attend to make safe within 24 hours.
2. Routine: which it aims to complete in once visit and in as “little time” as possible.
The landlord’s compensation policy states it should offer compensation when a there is a delay in completing a repair, up to a maximum of £50. The policy states it can also offer up to £20, each, for time and trouble; and distress.

Reports of repairs to the communal areas

From the evidence provided for this investigation, it is not possible to determine exactly when the landlord was on notice about the various communal repairs the resident raised as part of her complaint. The lack of available information, and detail in its own records, is a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2022, lacked detail in relation to its handling of the repairs/maintenance of the communal areas. The resident had expressed dissatisfaction with it handling of the issues described, but it offered no assessment of its own actions that led up to her making a complaint. This was inappropriate. It is noted it was reasonable for it to set out its latest position in relation to the outstanding repairs. However, a meaningful complaint response would have assessed its own actions that had caused the resident to complain. That it did not do so caused an inconvenience.
While the landlord set out the repairs to the communal areas it intended to do, which was appropriate, it did little to manage the resident’s expectations of when they would take place. It is noted that it was of the view it could not do the repairs until after the major works were complete. But, it failed to apply its own policy and set out a timeframe of when that would be. This would have helped reassure the resident it was taking her concerns about the communal repairs seriously, and manage her expectations about when it intended to complete them. The resident was evidently inconvenienced by the delay in completing the repairs. It would therefore have been appropriate to offer more of an explanation about indicative timescales, in line with its own policy.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response appeared to accept that the resident was inconvenienced by the issues in the communal areas, and the outstanding repairs. It is therefore unclear why it did not seek to offer compensation for the delay, in line with its compensation policy. This would have been appropriate in the circumstances, and gone some way to putting right the evident inconvenience she had experienced.
As with the stage 1 response, the landlord’s stage 2 response did not set out timescales in which it hoped to complete the repairs it had identified. It is noted it did so in relation to the front door repair, but not with the brick pillar, internal clean/decorations, or the guttering. This was a further shortcoming in its handling of the matter. Its approach was not in line with that set out in its responsive repairs policy. The lack of clarity about when the repairs would take place caused the resident a further inconvenience.
The landlord’s position on the guttering, and internal works changed between its stage 1 and 2 responses. This was confusing for the resident. In relation to the guttering, it initially said it could not clear it until the major works were finished, but later indicated it had instructed its contractor to progress. The lack of explanation about its change in position was inappropriate.
In relation to the internal cleaning/decoration its position changed also. In its stage 1 response it stated it would replace the flooring after the major works were finished. In its stage 2 response its position changed to simply state it would “consider” doing a deep clean. That it changed its position without an explanation was inappropriate, and was confusing for the resident. Given her evident frustration at the condition of the communal flooring, the lack of explanation was unreasonable. Considering the lack of clarity on this matter, an appropriate order is made below.
The landlord appeared to accept that the resident was inconvenienced by the delays in completing the communal repairs. It is noted that the delays were somewhat outside of its control, as it needed to complete the major works first. However, that it did not give indicative timeframes was inappropriate and not in line with its policy. It changed its position on certain repairs without giving an appropriate explanation. That it did not offer compensation for the delayed repairs was unreasonable, and is evidence it did not adhere to its own compensation policy.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the amount of service charge levied for communal services is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for historic repair, and the associated complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern about the time taken to complete major works at the block is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.

Reasons

The landlord appeared to accept that the resident was inconvenienced by the delays in completing the communal repairs. It is noted that the delays were somewhat outside of its control, as it needed to complete the major works first. However, that it did not give indicative timeframes was inappropriate and not in line with its policy. Its communication about the repairs was confusing, and did not seek to manage the resident’s expectations about when they would happen. It changed its position on certain repairs without giving an appropriate explanation. That it did not offer compensation for the delayed repairs was unreasonable.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 in compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of repairs to the communal areas.
3. Write to the resident to set out its position on whether it still intends to replace the floor (unless it has already done so).