GreenSquareAccord Limited (202110891)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110891

GreenSquareAccord Limited

8 August 2023 (amended at review)

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 complained about:
1. How the landlord handled concerns he raised about repairs to:

(i) Immersion heaters.

(ii) Communal lifts.

(iii) Communal bin store doors.

(iv) A leak into a communal water cupboard.

(v) A communal entrance door and related security concerns and anti-social behaviour.

(vi) Windows and doors within the flat.

(vii) CCTV cameras and the landlord’s CCTV procedures.

The landlord’s communication around the erection of scaffolding.
The landlord’s response to his request for reimbursement of service charges.
The landlord’s communication.
How the landlord handled the resident’s formal complaint.

Scope of Investigation

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident has raised concerns with the landlord and the Ombudsman about how the landlord handled reports of problems with the immersion heaters soon after the property was built, and in particular in 2013.
Generally, the Ombudsman would expect a resident to raise a complaint within a reasonable period of issues occurring. This is reflected in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising (paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme).
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint about how the landlord handled repairs reported to the immersion heaters soon after the property was built.
This investigation focuses on the period from April 2019 onwards, since the resident was raising concerns about various issues relating to the building which could have been addressed by the landlord as a formal complaint from this time. Some historical reports are summarised in the Background section below since they are relevant to the assessment of the landlord’s response to the complaint
In addition to this, in accordance with paragraph 42 (e) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to his request for reimbursement of service charges.
The resident complained that he had been charged for services in areas where the landlord had failed, for example, in relation to the lifts and security. He requested a refund or reduction in service charges to reflect this.
Under paragraph 42 (e) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The resident’s complaint is in essence about the level of services charges. A dispute about this would normally be more appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) which has the expertise and knowledge to consider the level and reasonableness of certain service charges. The Ombudsman has however considered the landlord’s complaint handling in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared owner of a leasehold flat (the property) within a block containing solely leasehold properties.
In April 2013, another resident in the block reported a problem with immersion heaters in their flat. She reported that a plumber had advised her that the settings on the cylinder on the immersion were dangerously high and that the cylinder did not meet legal specifications and should not have been used.
In December 2018 and February 2019, the resident was in touch with the landlord in relation to communal lift repairs. The landlord’s records of March 2019 refer to major lift repairs being planned.
On 17 April 2019, the resident emailed the landlord about various issues including:
1. A delay in repairing the lift.
1. Burst water pipe and the time taken to address this. He also referred to a leak the previous year which was left for several months and which residents suspected caused an issue with the lift.
2. Continued incidents of anti-social behaviour (ASB) by people forcing entry into the building, using drugs, using rubbish and being abusive to residents. He confirmed the doors had been secured on 16 April 2019 but asked what else the landlord could do to secure and protect the property.
3. Lack of updates from the customer service team.
In April 2019, the landlord wrote to residents about youths entering the block stating it would look at changing the fob system.
On 21 October 2019, the police informed the landlord that it had attended the block due to teenagers smoking in the building and setting off the smoke alarm and advised the landlord that it had received two other calls that month from residents of the block about children smoking cannabis. The police said that the young people “appear to be forcing the doors open” and requested the landlord check the doors.
Following this report from the police, the landlord spoke to one of the residents of the block who said the issue had been ongoing for over a year causing various ASB issues including vandalism, damaging lifts, smoking cannabis, littering, intimidating residents and noise. They also said the teenagers were forcing open the communal doors and deliberately damaging the block. The landlord’s internal correspondence states that its records show that it had attended several times and reported back that the magnetic locks were not working on two rear internal doors and there were several jobs on the system reporting that the doors were not secure. The landlord agreed various actions with the particular resident who it had spoken to including securing the communal doors, trying to identify the teenagers, and requesting the police patrol the area.
On 2 January 2020, the resident booked a repair to bin stores stating none of the doors could be shut.
On 6 January 2020, the resident reported an assault within the block. He said groups of teenagers were entering the building and asked what action the landlord would take and if CCTV footage was available. On 8 January 2020, he reported issues affecting the communal area, including internal doors not correctly locking and evidence of the smoke alarms being tampered with. The landlord acknowledged these emails and agreed to address the issues and provide an action plan. It also acknowledged it had let the resident and his neighbours down.
On 10 January 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it would attend to internal doors and the smoke vent switch, and it was going to start consultation in relation to the door entry systems. The police would send a report in relation to the most recent incident and it was looking to see what else could be done.
On 20 January 2020, the landlord provided an action plan including a site visit, residents’ meeting, working with the police and its ASB team (it said its ASB team was already working with police and had contacted victims and alleged perpetrators), addressing all security concerns and communal repairs.
On 21 January 2020, the resident said there was again evidence of the communal lobby being used by non-residents. He asked if the landlord could use CCTV footage to identify who entered and how, and contact the police. The landlord agreed to review the CCTV footage.
On 28 January 2020, the resident chased up the landlord about the issues set out in his email of 17 April 2019.The landlord said that it would meet with the police to look at security measures to address ASB, including checking the security doors. The next day the landlord said its ASB team had looked at CCTV footage, was working with police and had visited one person identified.
Some of the landlord’s internal correspondence noted that it was unable to access the CCTV unit without having step ladder training which did not take place prior to lockdown so this prevented identification of the intruders. This may relate to the incidents in January 2020, but from the evidence it is not entirely clear of the date of this issue.
On 25 February and 11 March 2020, there were residents’ meeting between landlord officers and residents of the block.
On 28 March 2020, following the first national lockdown in response to the Covid 19 pandemic, government guidance advised landlords to only access properties “for serious and urgent issues”.
On 6 April 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it was still looking into the issues and once Covid 19 restrictions were lifted, it would update residents and “hopefully start implementing items on the list soon after”. The resident responded including reporting that the lift was broken.
On 6 May 2020, the resident reported a vandalism incident in relation to another resident’s bike. The landlord told the resident it had spoken to the particular resident and the police. It advised it was monitoring the government guidelines on the lockdown and once it could move forward on any work, it would let the residents know.
On 1 June 2020, landlords were advised that they could now “carry out both routine and essential inspections and repairs”. The guidance also acknowledged that some landlords would have a back log of repairs so it might take longer than normal to carry out non-essential work.
On 4 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about various issues including:
1. Issues with the immersion heaters not working.
1. Windows dropping (now unable to open or close) and gaps in brickwork. This had now affected some patio doors.
2. The resident asked various questions including time line of when the maintenance team would be working again.

On 5 June 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it might take a few more weeks to get a date for the works identified due to a backlog of works and the business coming back to full capacity.

On 12 June 2020, the landlord told the resident that it was waiting to hear about the NCBC warranty but explained that residents were responsible for repairs within an individual flat.
On 10 July 2020, following contact from NHBC, the landlord advised the resident that NHBC had said that during years three to ten of the NHBC policy it did not cover poor installation of doors and windows, mechanical ventilation system or heating systems. The landlord said it would look into the patio door and windows and residents would need to carry out individual repairs on the other items such as heating.
On 10 July 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the basement door was not locking and provided a photo.
On 13 July 2020, the resident reported a theft and asked the landlord to check CCTV footage. The landlord agreed to look into this. The resident asked when it would secure the basement gate and door. The same day, resident reported lift stuck on the first floor.
On 16 July 2020, the resident reported the main basement gate broken which he thought had been forced.
On 17 July 2020, the landlord attended the property and advised the resident that the internal door had been addressed and the gate had been set to stay open whilst they source the part to complete the job. It also said the CCTV footage had been obtained and police had been in contact so it would liaise directly with them.
On 25 July 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the basement door that was fixed the previous week was faulty again and with the basement gate still not fixed, they were completed “unsecured”. He said the temporary fixes were not adequate enough and needed to be addressed. The landlord agreed to look into this. The resident also said that the bin cupboard doors were almost completely broken now too.
On 27 July 2020, the landlord said the car park gate was now working, it was a circuit issue cause by an issue with the bin store lights and that jobs were being raised. The resident said the door was working but the gate was not. On 28 July 2020, the resident confirmed that the basement door and gate were fixed.
On 31 July 2020, the resident reported that the communal front door was working but if pulled very hard it would open with a key fob and youths had entered the building. The police had been notified. He also reported that the back gate was closing very slowly and allowed unauthorised people access. The resident asked for a time frame for repair of the gate to the basement car park stating it was currently unsafe for residents to park and walk through the building to their homes. The landlord acknowledged that it needed to take urgent action, perhaps a full survey of the building.
On 3 August 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident on the phone and informed him that: it had completed a temporary fix to the gate and would address it properly urgently; it had asked a contractor to address bin store doors and add a covering to the exit switch; it would retrieve CCTV footage and review it to see how the youths were opening the doors; it would obtain quotes for the communal front door works and go ahead if under the £250 per unit consultation limit. A surveyor would attend to look at internal issues but due to the pandemic it might not be for a while.
On 11 August 2020, the resident reported that youths had entered the building again and the police were in attendance. He told the landlord that residents were dissatisfied with the service and would be cancelling direct debits.
On 18 August 2020, the resident reported “another break in”. He provided a photograph taken by one of the residents showing two individuals and requested the landlord retrieve CCTV footage from the basement camera. The landlord agreed to do so and said the previous footage had been retrieved and would be sent to the police.
On or around 20 August, the landlord advised the resident that it would inspect the communal areas during the week of 24 August 2020 and the inside of the flats on 3 or 4 September 2020. The release button in the car park had a target date of 10 September; blocked gutters were to be cleared by mid-September, and CCTV recording issues resolved by mid-September. The magnets to the communal doors had a target date of mid-September and it would confirm a target date for the bin store security issues the following week. Finally, the gaps above windows and doors had a target date for resolution of the end of October 2020.
The landlord attended the block on 24 August 2020, and noted around 30 repairs including various new communal repairs. On 28 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO about all of the issues he had been reporting.
On 30 August 2020, the resident reported “another instance of forced entry, anti-social behaviour, threats to residents…” and provided a police reference number. He requested someone attend to retrieve CCTV footage. He provided photographs of bin store doors that were broken off the hinges and falling apart.
The landlord’s internal correspondence evidence that it decided to now address the issue as a formal complaint and a reason given was so that if the resident continued to email multiple people about the same issues, it could advise that they would no longer respond. It noted it needed to agree an action plan and complete the action agreed.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it would be investigating the issues he had raised with the Chief Executive through its complaints process. It said it would ring him to discuss the complaint, which it did on 8 September 2020, and aimed to respond by 22 September 2020.
Also on 3 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he and other residents had seen some of the teenagers complained of hiding what looked like a gun and they then found what turned out to be a replica firearm, which he handed in to the police. He also said that the basement door was still unlocked so the youths has full access to all communal areas.
The landlord’s internal correspondence states that it spoke to the police about the gun and noted that there was no evidence that it was linked to the individuals on the CCTV footage provided. The police had identified one youth and the landlord planned to contact the Council to discuss what intervention could be made in relation to them. It agreed various actions with the police, including:
1. Ensuring the main entrance doors were secure, ideally secure metal/toughened glass security doors with fob or code entry only. The police had told the landlord that they find the doors “easy to get into with a good pull”.
1. Installing metal railings and secure metal gate with key coded entry around the bin stores.
2. Installing sign such as No Trespass.
On 3 September 2020, the landlord updated the resident stating it had contacted the police and would be meeting with a representative from the Local Authority and said it would keep the resident informed of progress.
On 7 September 2020, the resident reported the lift being broken again and the basement door was still not locking.
On 9 September 2020, the landlord told the resident that:
1. Work to the bin store was completed on 8 September.
1. The basement carpark entry/exit button work would be done the following day.
2. It found the lift working in its most recent visit. It asked him to confirm if there was an issue currently.
3. It had raised the work to reset the door lock in the basement and for the CCTV to be repaired.
4. Guttering and windows would require scaffolding so would need to be planned to coincide with each other.
5. It agreed to update him and would respond fully in the complaint response.

The resident confirmed that the lift nearest to his flat was still faulty and the bin stores were not yet fixed.

The landlord told the resident that they had had to order replacement bin store doors as the ones that had arrived were faulty, the police had advised they were unable to take any further action in relation to the replica firearm incident but it was considering additional security options.
On 16 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the basement gate that was fixed the previous day was broken leaving it unsecure. The internal door between the basement and corridors was still not fixed so the property was insecure. The landlord’s internal email correspondence refers to the magnet on the gate having been ripped off the gate and noted that the “steel mesh now secured permanent”. It planned to attend the property the same day.
On 17 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about some scaffolding being put up. He suggested the landlord should have informed the residents of this particularly since many of them were working from home. The landlord’s internal correspondence states it would normally let residents know. It was put up so that the landlord could complete a downpipe repair at the rear of the building. Another landlord employee state it would not normally inform all residents in a block about scaffolding going up unless it would affect them accessing their property or cause an obstruction but agreed to feedback the resident’s comments.
The landlord responded the same day including stating that it would his comments about scaffolding in the complaint response; the gate had been found worn and the magnet had broken off so it had re-attached it as a temporary fix. It would reattend the following week to carry out further repair. It would repair the internal door as soon as the required parts were received.
On 18 September 2020, the landlord informed the resident that its contractors would return to take down the scaffolding on 23 September 2020 and asked him to let the other residents know.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issues, noting that several had been ongoing for a long time.
In relation to the immersion heaters, the landlord said that the resident had raised an issue with the immersion heaters being originally installed unnecessarily and dangerously high. The landlord said that due to the time that had passed, it was unable to find any relevant records and apologise that he was left without a “definitive response and decision on this”. It said that when it had visited on 4 September 2020, it inspected numerous flats and no concerns were raised about this and it would not take any more action.
In relation to the lifts, the landlord said that there had been numerous issues with the lifts in the past which led to modernisation works being completed in June 2019. The lifts are checked monthly and a more thorough inspection every quarter. The landlord said that according to its records, since the upgrade, its contractor had attended five times to reports that the lifts were not working correctly and each time it attended, it provides the landlord with a report. The landlord said it had no concerns that there was a reoccurring fault but it would continue to monitor this.
The landlord acknowledged that there was an ongoing water leak at the block and despite it attended several times, it was not resolved until the issue was “much worse”. It said it had apologised for this at the time and reiterated this.
In relation to door security, the landlord acknowledged that there had been issues with non-residents entering the block without a permanent fix being implemented. It said this was due to the magnets on the doors weakening over time and that they can now be pushed open with force. It said it was investigating options to resolve this and residents would be updated by the end of September 2020.
In relation to ASB, the landlord said it understood there were issues with groups of youths entering the building without permission and causing a nuisance, including with a replica gun appearing recently. It said it was aware of these issues and was working closely with other agencies to resolve them. It was also looking at additional deterrents to discourage the youths from the area and these would be communicated to all residents in an update.
In relation to CCTV, the landlord said the resident had raised concerns that the process for making CCTV available to the police was not efficient and had led to them not being able to progress investigation as the footage had not been retrieved before being wiped after 10 days. The landlord said that this was not the case but is acknowledged the current process was not as efficient as it could be and it was looking into a system it could remotely access to prevent delays in retrieving footage.
In relation to communication about the erection of scaffolding, the landlord said it standard practice to advise residents of this but it noted the feedback and agreed to recommend this step was added to its process.
In relation to the service charge, the landlord said that the charges were correct and it had not re-charged for anything to do with the ongoing repairs or ASB.
In relation to the landlord’s communication, the landlord acknowledged that his complaint had highlighted that there were communication, ownership and record-keeping issues between internal departments once the initial contact has taken place which makes it difficult for the Customer Service Team to help residents when they contact it but confirmed they were the appropriate team to contact.
The landlord set out updates in relation to various repair issues, including that:
1. Release button in car park: Resolved.
2. CCTV: Resolved.
3. Entrance doors: Temporarily fixed, long term options to be given to residents to agree a way forward.
4. Gaps above windows and doors: Latent defect from when property was built, long term options to be given to residents to agree a way forward.
5. Bin store doors: Awaiting delivery of replacement doors as they were found to be defective when they were going to be fitted.
It said that it would update the residents in relation to some issues, such as the poorly fitted doors and windows, and inadequate front and back door security by the end of September 2020. It also explained it might need to undertake section 20 consultation. The landlord said it would hold a resident’s meeting, initially quarterly, with a view to reducing this to twice a year to ensure residents have an opportunity to raise any issues they may have.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged that there were several areas it needed to review and improve and it said it would do this. It said it would contact the resident at the end of October to discuss how things were going.
The resident responded to this setting out his dissatisfaction, including that:
1. The issues with the immersion had been ongoing since installation.
1. The resident suspected the lift had failed more than five times, but if so, it had failed once every three months. One of the residents was trapped
2. in the lift with two small children and a baby for nearly two hours. The landlord should have fully repaired the lift in 2019 rather than a refurbishment.
3. The leak he was referring to was a different one – in the water cupboard behind the problematic lift on the second floor. It took about three months to be fixed after it was reported and he asked why the landlord did not have a record of this.
4. In relation to door security, this had been ongoing for over a year and the landlord’s website said it deals with ASB issues within five working days. He expected the landlord to provide security such as doors that lock and that are strong enough to withhold being pulled open and CCTV
5. In relation to CCTV, he said the police and fire brigade had also been affected by this and asked for assurances that footage would be shared with him before being wiped. He also asked if procedures were in place to ensure such activities were fully reported and whether the camera above the door had been fixed.
6. The residents had been charged for repairs when few had been completed, for example, painting of internal doors. They pay a service charge to maintain the building including lifts, security, doors etc but the landlord had failed in these areas. He requested a refund to reflect this.
7. He asked what the landlord would do to address the communications issues it had acknowledged between its own departments.
8. He also said the front door was still unsecure and not covered by CCTV, and requested timeframes for the windows and doors, and the bin doors.
On 1 October 2020, the resident reported a break in at the building stating access had been gained by “inadequate front doors”. He said the perpetrators were “aggressive” and “abusive”, using drugs, and “assaulted a resident”. He requested the landlord support police with enquiries as it should be captured on CCTV and requested the landlord secure the building. He also reported the lift breaking down the same day.
On 7 October 2020, there is evidence the landlord was arranging to obtain CCTV footage and that they keep recordings for 10 days. It also obtained confirmation that all cameras were working as at that time.
On 8 October 2020, the landlord informed the resident that the police had contacted it about the incident on 30 September 2020 and the CCTV footage had been obtained and would be given to the police. It also said it would pass on information of the most recent incident to the police.
On 9 October 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s additional questions, stating that:
1. It would not take any further action in relation to the immersion heaters since as a shared owner, any repair or maintenance work was his responsibility under the terms of the lease.
1. It listed the five faults to the lift noting that these were all different so there was no recurring problem. It had repaired the lift when issues were reported. Further it had carried out testing of the lifts on 7 October 2020 and met with its independent lift consultant, and no concerns were found.
2. In relation to the leak, the landlord said it was satisfied that issues with the lift were not connected to the leak and there were no outstanding works in relation to the leak. It acknowledged its records were incomplete but said that where issues cross over more than one department, it now appoints an owner to lead on responses to ensure this doesn’t happen again.
3. In relation to door security and ASB, it said it could not yet carry out a repair because of the requirement to carry out a section 20 consultation, and said the door was as secure as it could be.
4. In relation to CCTV, it said that if the police requested footage within 10 days of an incident, it would provide the footage. It acknowledged its processes could be better and it aimed to update its guidelines. It said the camera above the communal front door was fixed on 17 August 2020.
5. It listed various appointment dates for communal repairs.
6. In terms of communication, the landlord said that the writer of the letter was his complaint case manager and point of contact and it had put in place this new way of working alongside its new complaints policy in March 2020.
7. The landlord said that it had provided breakdown of the service charges recently and would respond to any specific queries.
8. The landlord acknowledged that there were learnings it must take away from how his concerns were handled previously and the consistency of communication and it apologised for this. It agreed to oversee the communal repairs to ensure they were carried out and the resident kept informed of progress. It said it would contact the resident by 23 October 2020 to catch up with the resident.
On 23 October 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was waiting to hear from the police as to how to share the CCTV footage and had chased them about this. The landlord said all jobs in its letter of 25 September and 9 October 2020 were complete other than clearing the low-level guttering and the section 20 process had since started. It said it would contact him on 6 November 2020. The resident requested a phone call and they spoke on 2 November 2020.
The resident said that the bin stores still were not fixed and the landlord agreed to look into this. The resident expressed the view that the repairs going through the section 20 process should be put right by the landlord since they were not upgrades or natural replacements, they occurred as they were inferior products and workmanship. The landlord disagreed.
The resident reported further break ins, on 2 and 12 November 2020. He also expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was using wooden doors to fix the issue with the bin stores as it had agreed that metal doors were needed. The landlord acknowledged reports of a break in and damage and said it would repair the damage and retrieve CCTV footage.
On 20 Nov 2020, the police contacted the landlord about the crimes and ASB and informed the landlord that it believed the “main issue” was access to both the blocks and the underground parking area.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord wrote to residents about qualifying works under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 making various proposals including:
1. Replacing all the external windows at the block. It proposed to meet between 30 and 50% of the costs of this because of the issues with the windows occurring only 11 years after the block was built.
1. Replacing all the external communal doors. It said it was unclear if the doors needed to be replaced because of general day to day wear and tear or if they were damaged by attempts to gain access. It said it would contribute 60% of the total cost.
2. Relocating existing CCTV cameras, providing new CCTV system and moving hardware to a safer location, installing additional two cameras to the internal foyer. The landlord agreed to pay for the cost of this. It also acknowledged that the security of the property had been an issue and it accepted that it had been slow to take action.
In approximately April 2021, the landlord agreed to install metal doors to the bin stores since the wooden ones it had installed the previous year had been damaged by misuse.
On 29 September 2021, the landlord wrote to residents about the section 20 process in relation to new windows and doors. It confirmed a contractor had been instructed and were due to start work in January 2022. It agreed to pay 50% of the cost since some windows and patio door were not yet due for renewal.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that:
1. The bin store locks seldom work and not everyone uses the combination to do so, so fly tipping is still a problem.
1. Guttering is still leaking.
2. Windows were replaced.
3. Entrance doors have now been replaced.
4. Lifts still regularly break down.

Assessment and findings

How the landlord handled repairs: Immersion heaters

The resident complained that the immersion heaters within the flats in the building were faulty and or installed incorrectly. He considers that if the landlord had addressed this in a timely manner, the issue would have been covered by insurance.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord said it was unable to find relevant records due to the time that had passed. As a shared owner, the resident was responsible for repairing this and the landlord would not take any action.
There is evidence that another leaseholder within the block raised a concern about the safety of the immersion heater in their flat in 2013. The resident raised issues with the immersion heaters with the landlord on 4 June 2020.
The Ombudsman has been provided with a copy of the lease, which states that the leaseholder is responsible for keeping the flat in “good and substantial repair and condition”. The definition of the flat within the lease includes all service installations which exclusively serve the flat (save for an exception which is not relevant here). The landlord’s position that the resident was generally responsible for repairs to the immersion and other parts of the heating installation was therefore in accordance with the lease terms.
However, it would also be appropriate for a landlord to provide advice and assistance in relation to any defects that arise within a defect period or within the period covered by any NHBC cover. NHBC provides insurance and warranty cover for new homes. Following the resident raising concerns about this in 2020, the landlord investigated this and advised in July 2020 that the NHBC policy would not cover heating systems during years three to ten of the policy. The landlord acted appropriately in July 2020 by looking into this issue and providing advice based on the information it obtained from NHBC.
The scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation does not extend to the landlord’s handling of this issue in 2013 for the reasons set out in paragraphs two to four above. There is no evidence of the landlord being made aware of issues with the immersion heaters between 2013 and 2020. However, it is noted that the landlord admitted a lack of records in relation to the history of this issue. It is not known whether this relates to how it handled the report in 2013 or to further potential reports between 2013 and 2020. This is of concern and may have impacted the scope of this investigation.

How the landlord handled repairs: Lift maintenance

The resident complained that there had been regular problems with the lifts for several years and the landlord should have carried out a full repair rather than attending repeatedly. He thought that the landlord’s delay in repairing a leak was the cause of or part of the cause of this. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the lifts still break down regularly now.
The landlord’s complaint response stated that it had attended to five faults since the lifts were refurbished in 2019 and since these were all different, there was no recurring problems. Further it had found no concerns at a test of the lifts on 7 October 2020.
The evidence provided to the landlord in relation to the lifts is extensive, but in summary, there is evidence that between 25 July 2019 and 9 October 2020 (the landlord’s final complaint response, the records include the following reports (summaries included only):
1. 25 July 2019 – The in car second floor call switch “white light is out. The in car audio does not correspond to the floor number listed.”
1. 27 July 2019 – 3 residents stuck in lift.
2. 24 September 2019 – “repair lift which is out of order” and 26 September 2019 “ Supplied and fitted new rectifier and varistor…returned lift to service”.
3. 2 October 2019 – “Repair lift near flat 34 which is out of service”. “…Traced fault to safety rope switch, top of shaft. Adjusted switch and returned to service”. (Attended 6 October 2019).
4. 18 November 2019 – “fire alarm went off within both lifts and they are both now unoperational…” The engineer’s notes state “both lifts ooo as fire control panel is in fault mode. Fire alarm company required to reset fire panel”.
5. 20 November 2019 – Right wing – “the shaft light switches and shaft emergency lighting are inoperative”.
6. 20 November 2019 – Left wing – “The in car second floor call switch “white light is out. The in car audio does not correspond to the floor number listed”.
7. 29 November 2019 – “lift stuck at level 2” – “lift ooo following fire recall shut down. Reset lift panel and tested before returning to service”
8. 16 December 2019 – left wing “The in car second floor call switch “white light” is out. The in car audio does not correspond to the floor number listed.”
9. 2 January 2020- “lift out of service. Safety chain failure.” The notes state “assisted” on 3 January 2020.
10. 26 February – “motion feedback sensor fault, reset and rts”
11. 12 May 2020 – left wing lift was examined. The report includes the following defects: “The in car second floor call switch “white light” is operative. The in car audio does not correspond to the floor number listed. The ground floor lift level display is displaced.”
12. 12 May 2020 – right wing lift was examined. The report includes the following defects: “The shaft light switches and shaft emergency lighting are inoperative. The in building alarm sounds when the emergency button is activated but the auto dialler fails to connect to a service provider”.
13. 15 July 2020 – “Repair lift stuck on first floor”… “Reset drive and returned to service”.
14. 11 September 2020 – “repair fault with lift, sounds like it is stuck between floors”.
15. It attended on 1 October 2020 and “traced fault to O/T limit on car top needed to be manually reset. Found the Ground floor indicator had been vandalised, repaired, tested over a period of time and left in service”.
16. 19 October 2020 – “supply and fit new voice announcer to correspond with floor designations”.
Following the end of the landlord’s complaints process, there is also further evidence of reports of faults and repairs with the lifts, including twelve entries in the following 6 months. These include the lift being stuck on the first floor; an issue with the “autodialler” not connecting to a service provider when the emergency button is activated (this is noted in both November 2020 and April 2021); an issue with emergency lighting; and an issue with the call buttons. One entry dated 30 April 2021 states “The first floor landing door air cord has a broken strand, this should be suitably renewed within six weeks, no later than 10/6/2021”. It is noted as a defect which could cause danger to persons.
Between May 2021 and December 2021, there were at least a further five entries of various different faults or maintenance issues with the lifts. There are further references to the autodialler failing to connect to a service provider and a second reference to the urgent defect, this time in October 2021.

There is also evidence in the communications between the landlord and the resident that the resident had personally reported a problem with the lifts on multiple occasions.
Given the number of attendances and faults reported as evidenced in the documentation provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord carried out an appropriate investigation into this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The records referred to the landlord’s complaint response do not reflect the number of reports and issues set out in the records and therefore the landlord has not been able to show that it reached a reasonable conclusion in relation to this aspect of the complaint.
Given the number of times the lifts were reported out of order and/or found to have faults upon inspection, the landlord should have done more to investigate the condition of the lifts and confirm whether they did need more extensive work done than repeatedly attending upon receiving a report of a fault. This is particularly of concern given that the frequency of reports of faults with the lifts has continued following the end of the complaints process including at least one serious fault.
By failing to fully investigate this issue, the landlord has missed the opportunity to:
1. Identify any potential shortcomings in its maintenance of the lift.
2. Reassure the resident that it was appropriately managing these repairs.
3. Ensure the lifts are in full working order.
4. Take any appropriate steps to improve the lift service.

How the landlord handled repairs: Bin stores

The landlord’s repairs policy is stated to apply to communal repairs and it includes a non-emergency response time of 28 calendar days from the report. It states that an inspection, if needed, should take place within 7 days, leaving 21 days to complete the repair.
There is evidence that the resident made the landlord aware of an repair required to the bin stores on 2 January 2020. By 25 July 2020, the resident informed the landlord that the bin store doors were “almost completely broken”. Soon after he informed the landlord that this issue was contributing to the ASB and illegal behaviour in and around the block. At this time the landlord said it would see if a surveyor could raise the work.
On or around 20 August 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would confirm a target date for these repairs the following week. The landlord agreed with the police that it would install metal railings and a secure metal gate with key coded entry around the bin stores. The landlord was due to install new doors in October 2020, but on 2 November 2020, the resident was reporting that this issue was still not repaired.
The landlord’s records refer to appointments on 14 September 2020 and 14 January 2021, but it is unclear what exactly was done. There is evidence that by 29 March 2021, a new wooden door with a code lock had been installed.
In early to mid-July 2021, the landlord replaced the bin store doors with steel ones. A mesh for extra security was added on 26 July 2021 and the landlord intended to add extra security plates as well. This was booked for 23 August 2021. The records evidence that there have been some further issues with the doors being left unlocked since then.
There was a delay in the landlord completing this repair since it was first reported on 2 January 2020 and the landlord did not do so in accordance with the timescales in it policy. There is no evidence of it taking any action between January and March 2020.
It is acknowledged that landlords were facing an unprecedented challenge in responding to the pandemic in March 2020 and the months following this, and they had to manage their repairing responsibilities in accordance with the relevant government guidance at this time. It is also acknowledged that the landlord may have had a backlog of repairs resulting from the Covid restrictions. It is therefore reasonable to say that the delay between 28 March 2020 and 25 July 2020 could largely by attributable to these factors and the repairs were not likely to have been considered serious or urgent at that time.
However, following this, the landlord was aware that the issue was part of the ASB issues in and around the block and it should therefore have treated it as an urgent repair. The landlord appropriately liaised with the police and agreed to install a metal gate (August 2020). However, there was then a delay in the landlord fully addressing this since the evidence shows it did not do so until July 2021 and did not do so within the timescales set out in its policy. Some of the effects of this were mitigated by the landlord having installed new wooden doors, however it took the landlord about 7 months to do this, and it is unclear why it took so long to install the metal doors and properly secure the area, particularly when it had agreed with the police to do so in August 2020.

How the landlord handled repairs: Entrance doors and related security issues and ASB

The resident complained about how the landlord handled the issues with security to the communal doors and the related ASB.
The landlord’s ASB policy states that the landlord will:
1. Have a strong focus on preventative measures tailored towards the needs of tenants, their families and communities generally.
2. Take prompt, appropriate and decisive action to deal with ASB before it escalates, which focuses on resolving the problem having regard to the full range of tools and legal powers available.
3. Respond to reports swiftly based on the impact of the report providing the name of a dedicated case officer where appropriate.
4. Use and regularly review the risk assessment matrix to identify support requirements for complainants, witnesses and others impacted by the behaviour.
5. Agree an action plan and frequency of contact.
6. Promote multi-agency working.
7. Deal with graffiti, property damage and security issues quickly.
The landlord’s repairs policy refers to examples of repairs it classes as emergency, including external doors and ground floor windows which cannot be secured and failure of communal door entry system. Its target for response times for emergency repairs is 24 hours.
There is evidence that the resident made the landlord aware of ASB issues in the form of people forcing entry into the building, using drugs and being abusive to residents as far back as 16 April 2019. At this time, the landlord said it was looking at changing the fob system. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking any follow-up action at this time and there was therefore a delay in the landlord addressing this issue.
The landlord’s repair records evidence that between 16 September 2019 and 27 October 2021, the landlord received at least 14 reports of issues with the communal doors to the building not shutting, locking or not being secure. The resident informed the landlord on 21 October 2019 that young people were forcing the doors open. The police also requested the landlord investigate the doors at this time. The landlord was aware from this time of the severity of the impact of the security issue, in the form of allegations of vandalism, damaging lifts, drug use, littering and intimidating residents. In early January 2020, an assault on a resident was reported.
Given the impact that the issues surrounding the security of the entrance door was having, the landlord should have treated this issue with urgency. It is of concern therefore that there is no evidence of the landlord taking action in November and December 2019. In January 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would start consultation in relation to the doors. It also agreed an action plan including working with the police and its ASB team. Two residents’ meetings also took place. These actions were appropriate and in accordance with the landlord’s ASB policy which refers to action plans and multi-agency working.
However, the landlord did not follow this up by either completing a repair or starting the consultation process. Therefore, while the landlord took some appropriate action in January 2020, it missed an opportunity to fully address this issue at this time.
The landlord appropriately updated the resident in April 2020 referring to the covid restrictions and It was reasonable that the landlord acted in accordance with the government’s guidance during the first covid lockdown. Although it is noted that it given the security concerns raised, the issue with the doors could have been classed as urgent.
However, once the covid guidance was amended in June 2020, there was still a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part in addressing this issue. The landlord identified in both January and August 2020 that a consultation process might be required for this work, but did not start it until approximately October 2020.
When responding to the complaint in September 2020, the landlord said that a the doors had been temporarily fixed and long-term options would be given to residents. The landlord’s repair records refer to it easing and adjusting two door closers on 24 September 2020, which may be the temporary repair the landlord referred to.
It is likely that the action taken by the landlord in September 2020 addressed the issue at least partially, since there are less frequent reports of issues with the doors between September 2020 and when the doors were replaced. However, there were reports of a break in and ASB in November 2020 and the police were still in contact with the landlord about the issue, so there is evidence that it did not fully resolve the issue, and the resident and other residents in the block were still being affected by the problem.
Given the terms of the landlord’s policies to address security concern repairs within 24 hours and to take prompt and preventative measures to tackle ASB, it is of concern that this issue was first raised in April 2019, consultation did not start until approximately October 2020 and the doors were not replaced approximately October 2021. There were times when the landlord took reasonable steps such as inspecting the doors, liaising with the police, considering whether it needed to consult under section 20. There was also likely some delay caused by the Covid restrictions for which it would be unfair to hold the landlord responsible.
However, given that the issue with the communal doors was a security concern and the landlord was made aware of ASB affecting the resident and other residents in the building in numerous occasions, it should have addressed this issue more urgently. The landlord did not start the consultation process to replace the communal doors until approximately 18 months after first being made aware they were insecure. Given the amount of ASB reports made including thefts, an assault, altercations with the youths, drug use and other anti-social activity, and impact of these instances on the resident and other residents in the block, the landlord’s delay in addressing this issue was serious and had a detrimental impact on the resident.
There is also no evidence of the landlord carrying out a risk assessment in relation to this issue in accordance with the ASB policy. While some evidence of communications with the police has been provided, the Ombudsman has not been provided with the number of communications with the police referred to by the landlord. The resident was told on multiple occasions that the landlord was liaising with the police and seeking CCTV footage, but the Ombudsman has only been provided with limited evidence of this.
There were also various reports in relation to the basement door and car park gates first raised in July 2020. Overall, there is evidence that the landlord was attending to these issues following the resident’s reports. The landlord attempted repairs in mid-July 2020, the end of July 2020, and early September 2020. However, it is acknowledged that they attempted multiple repairs, the resident reported the issues multiple times, and these issues added to the security concerns in the building.

How the landlord handled repairs: communal leak

The resident complained about a leak in a water cupboard, behind one of the lifts. He complained that it took about three months to be fixed after it was reported. The landlord said it was satisfied that the issues with the lift were not connected to the leak and there were no outstanding works in relation to the leak. It acknowledged its records were incomplete but said that it now appoints an owner to lead on responses when issues cross over more than one department to ensure this did not happen again.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to confirm when this leak occurred, the cause of it, or how long it took to repair. It is therefore not possible of this service to reach any conclusions in relation to this. However, it is of concern that the landlord has not kept records in relation to this leak which it does acknowledge took place. A landlord’s record keeping is a crucial aspect of its overall service delivery.
The landlord indicated that it had made a change to improve its record keeping, which was appropriate. However, the landlord should also have acknowledged the impact on the resident of it being unable to investigate this aspect of the complaint. It is also unclear how it reached the conclusions it did about the status of the repair and link between the leak and the lift issues, if it had incomplete records.

How the landlord handled repairs: windows and doors

The landlord’s records evidence that it was aware from at least March 2020 that there were gaps above windows and door externally “on balconies throughout the block”. The resident contacted the landlord about this on 4 June 2020. The landlord accepted it responsibility for this issue but checked whether a claim could be made under the NHBC policy, but it could not.
The landlord completed an inspection on 4 September 2020 of several flats within the building to consider this issue. It then confirmed that this was a latent defect from when the property was built. By about October 2020, the landlord started the consultation process to replace the windows and agreed to pay 50% of the costs. Work was due to start January 2022 and the resident has confirmed that this work was completed.
Given the Covid guidance that was in place between March and June 2020, it is reasonable that the landlord did not take any action to address this issue during this time. There is no suggestion in the evidence that this was urgent and inspection would have involved entering into individual flats. There was a short delay between June and September 2020 when the landlord inspected the flats. However, it is also acknowledged that the landlord likely had a backlog of repairs as a result of the Covid 19 restrictions and therefore this was not an extensive delay in the circumstances. Following this, the landlord carried out the consultation process and replaced the windows.
Overall, there is no evidence of a significant failing in respect of this particular issue. The landlord acted reasonably providing advice in respect of the NHBC policy and the resident’s repairing responsibilities, which were in accordance with the lease. Once the covid restrictions were lifted, the landlord acted appropriately by starting the consultation process and completing repairs.

CCTV cameras and CCTV procedures.

The resident complained about the landlord’s process for making CCTV available to the police stating that it was not efficient and had affected the police’s ability to investigate the ASB. The landlord disputed this but acknowledged it could be more efficient and said it was looking into a system so it could remotely access footage. The resident also asked if footage could be shared with him before being wiped, if procedures were in place to ensure the CCTV activities were reported and whether the CCTV camera above the door had been repaired.
The landlord said that if the police requested footage within 10 days of an incident, it would provide it. It acknowledge its processes could be better and said it aimed to update its guidelines. It said the camera above the front door was repaired on 17 August 2020.
Following reports of youths entering the building in January 2020, the landlord agreed to review CCTV footage and advised the resident that it had done this. However, there is reference in the landlord’s records to it being unable to access some footage, possibly in January 2020. On 13 July 2020, the resident requested the landlord review CCTV footage following a theft and the landlord advised the resident to report it to the police. It subsequently informed the resident that CCTV footage had been obtained and it would liaise directly with the police.
Again in early August 2020, the landlord agreed to retrieve CCTV footage to see how youths were entering the building. It subsequently said it had retrieved this and would send it to the police. On 18 August 2020, the resident reported a further break in and requested the landlord retrieve CCTV footage, which the landlord agreed to do. On 30 August 2020, the resident reported further ASB issues and requested CCTV footage be obtained.
The landlord’s internal correspondence refers to it retrieving footage of an incident report on 30 September 2020 and intended to share it with the police. There is evidence that the landlord was arranging to obtain further footage in early October 2020 and that the cameras were all working at that time.
There is no evidence of a significant shortcoming by the landlord in relation to this issue. The landlord was responding to communication from the resident about requests for CCTV and advised on several occasions that it had obtained the footage and would share it with the police, which was appropriate. There is confirmation that the landlord checked that the cameras were working following the resident’s query about this, which was appropriate. The landlord has also confirmed that it has since adopted a new CCTV policy.
However, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of the landlord obtaining CCTV footage and while the landlord repeatedly told the resident that it had done so, limited evidence has been provided to confirm that the landlord was able to and did access CCTV appropriately in response to the various reports.

Repairs: conclusion

While the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for some shortcomings in relation to the handling of repairs at the block, it did not identify all of its shortcomings and delays, and neither did it acknowledge the impact these had on the resident and other residents in the block. There was also shortcomings in respect of how it investigated the lift repairs and in its record keeping. Given the number of and severity of issues which affected the block and individual flats, the landlord should have offered financial compensation as redress for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. This was particularly important in relation to the delays to bin store repairs and addressing the security concerns given the severity and impact of the ASB that affected the resident for a significant period.

Record-keeping

When carrying out this investigation, the Ombudsman noted that there was evidence of shortcomings in relation to the landlord’s record-keeping in relation to the immersion heaters, the communal leak and the CCTV process. Given that this has been identified in three separate areas, the Ombudsman has made an additional finding in respect of the landlord’s record keeping and made appropriate Orders to address this.

Communication about scaffolding

On 17 September 2020, the resident complained that the landlord had not let him and other residents know in advance of putting up some scaffolding.
On 18 September 2020, the landlord informed the resident that it would be taking down the scaffolding on 23 September 2020.
In response to the complaint, the landlord said that it was not its standard practice to do so but it noted his comment and agreed to recommend adding this step to its process. The evidence confirms that the landlord considered the resident’s proposal and whether it would normally inform residents of putting up scaffolding. It also agreed to recommend changing its process to include this. It also advised him of when the scaffolding would be taken down.
Overall, the landlord has acted reasonably in relation to this aspect of the complaint by considering and responding to the resident’s concern and taking steps to improve its communication in this area. It is acknowledged that it would be reasonable for the landlord to only inform residents about scaffolding going up where this was likely to affect their particular properties.. The landlord has also confirmed that its current policy is that it informs customers who are directly affected by scaffolding, and if it is appropriate where lots of customers in communal buildings are likely to be affected, it would consider placing a notice on the communal board ahead of the works. This approach is fair.

Communication

The resident complained about the landlord’s communication, referring to the customer service team not dealing with requests appropriately.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint had highlighted that there were communication, ownership and record-keeping issues between internal departments once the initial contact has taken place which makes it difficult for the Customer Service Team to help residents when they contact it but confirmed they were the appropriate team to contact.
The resident asked what the landlord would do to improve things and how it ensures it met its communication target timescales. The landlord acknowledged that there were learnings it must take away from how his concerns were handled previously and the consistency of communication and it apologised for this. It agreed to oversee the communal repairs to ensure they were carried out and the resident kept informed of progress.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things rights
3. Learn from outcomes
The landlord acted appropriately in identifying its shortcomings in relation to the communication issues. It also took steps to improve its communication with the resident by appointing a single point of contact and agreeing to keep him updated going forward. There is evidence that the landlord updated the resident and provided him with information about the repairs following the end of the complaints process.
However, the landlord did not identify any learnings or improvement it would take to address the communication issues identified in relation to its customer services team. While it noted it was taking steps to address the repairs and improve its communication with the resident, it did not address what it would do to address the “communication, ownership and record-keeping issues between internal departments” it had itself identified. The landlord should have done this.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints policy states that it will treat any expressions of dissatisfaction as a complaint, unless there is a valid reason not to.
The resident’s emails to the landlord dated 19 April 2019 and 28 January 2020 do include dissatisfaction with how the landlord was handling various issues including in relation to the handling of lift repairs, communication and time taken to address security concerns. The landlord should therefore have treated these communications as complaints and addressed them in accordance with its policy. This is particularly notable given that there is evidence in the landlord’s internal correspondence that it was aware there had been shortcomings in how it had handled some of the issues at the block.
In not doing so, the landlord missed opportunities to identify where it needed to take more urgent action and resolve the issues sooner. It is also of concern that when the landlord did treat the resident’s communication as a formal complaint, the reason given internally was to manage his communications rather than as an opportunity to address his concerns. This does not evidence a positive complaints handling culture.
The landlord therefore failed to handle the resident’s complaints fairly and in accordance with its own complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
The Ombudsman has also noted that the landlord’s complaint response in relation to the resident’s complaint about the service charges did not evidence that it appropriately investigated this aspect of the complaint.
The resident complained that he had been charged for repairs when few had been completed. For example, painting of internal doors and they pay a service charge to maintain the building including lifts, security, doors etc but the landlord had failed in these areas. He requested a refund to reflect this.
In relation to the service charge, the landlord’s complaint response said that the charges were correct and it had not re-charged for anything to do with the ongoing repairs or ASB. The landlord also said that it had provided breakdown of the service charges recently and would respond to any specific queries.
The landlord has provided a copy of its Service Charge schedule for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020. This schedule includes charges for lift service and repairs as well as for communal repairs and communal cleaning, and door entry maintenance and repair. Given this, and further if the following year’s schedule contained these same items, it is unclear why the landlord said that the resident had not been recharged or anything to do with the ongoing repairs or ASB, since it would follow that some of the repairs in response to the issues complained would fall under these charges.
The Ombudsman would expect landlords to review the charges residents have incurred for specific services where shortcomings in those services have been identified as part of a complaint response. The landlord missed an opportunity to address this aspect of the complaint and this was another failing in its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the complaint about how the landlord handled the resident’s concerns about repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s communication about scaffolding.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of how the landlord handled the formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the concerns about the immersions heaters was reasonable and there is no evidence of a significant failing in relation to how it addressed the defects to windows and doors. However, the landlord has not evidenced that it properly investigated the concerns raised about lift maintenance and the response given does not reflect the evidence provided to the Ombudsman. There were delays in the landlord addressing the repairs to the bin stores and addressing the security concerns to the communal doors. These delays affected the landlord’s ability to address the reported ASB and significantly impacted the resident and other residents in the block. The landlord did not start the consultation process to replace the communal doors until approximately 18 months after first being made aware they were insecure. While the landlord did identify and apologise for some shortcomings in respect of repairs at the block, it did not acknowledge the extent of its failings, offer appropriate redress or indicate how it would improve its services going forward.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about scaffolding communication was reasonable in the circumstances.
There were shortcomings in the landlord’s communication about the issues raised, which the landlord acknowledged. However, it has not evidenced that it has taken steps to prevent such issues happening again, which it should have done.
There was evidence of incomplete records in three separate areas of the complaint.
The landlord failed to respond to at least two expressions of dissatisfaction which should have been treated as complaints in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. When it did decide to invoke its policy, the reasons given were inappropriate and against the spirit of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2,050 compensation, comprising:
  1. £1200 as a remedy to the distress and inconvenience caused by its delays in addressing the repairs to the bin stores and the security and repairs issues with the communal entrance doors.
  2. £250 as a remedy for the distress and inconvenience caused by the shortcomings in its investigation into the lift maintenance.
  3. £250 for the impact on the resident and the handling of his complaint caused by the failures in the landlord’s record keeping.
  4. £350 as a remedy for the additional distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble caused by how it handled the resident’s formal complaint.
2. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failings identified in this report and offer to meet with the resident if he wishes to do so, to provide the parties an opportunity to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship.
3. Consider whether it would be appropriate to make equivalent compensation payments to any other residents in the block that were affected by the shortcomings in the landlord’s handling of the communal door security and bin store repairs and report back to the Ombudsman with its findings and decision.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Arrange for an appropriately qualified lift maintenance specialist to inspect the communal lifts and provide a report as to the condition of the lifts, any current repairs, and whether it is reasonable to continue to complete ad hoc repairs, or if it would be more cost effective to carry out more significant works, refurbishment or replacement works. This report should be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident.
2. Carry out a review of its record-keeping practices and policies in respect of repairs and CCTV requests, and take any identified steps required to ensure that it is keeping appropriate records in these areas. The landlord to update the Ombudsman with its findings and any identified improvements.
3. Review its communication processes involving the Customer Service Team to identify if the shortcomings identified in this complaint are still an issue. If they are, the landlord should identify what steps it needs to take to address this. The landlord should report back to the Ombudsman with its conclusions about this.
4. The landlord to advise its complaints handling staff to review the comments in this report in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a service charge refund, and the shortcomings identified in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord to ensure its complaints handling staff are aware of the Ombudsman’s Complaints handling Code. The landlord to evidence it has taken these steps to the Ombudsman.