Hightown Housing Association Limited (202324004)

Background

1. From early 2022 the landlord completed repairs several times to an electric gate in a communal carpark. The resident rents a space in the carpark from the landlord. Her payments stopped in February 2023 and the landlord then wrote to her in July advising her that she had fallen into arrears. The resident was initially unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the arrears and the repairs to the gate.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
   1. Repairs to the communal carpark gate (the gate).
   2. Associated complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the communal carpark gate.
4. We found service failure in its handling of the complaint.
5. In view of the above, we have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Carpark gate

6. The landlord met its obligations to repair the gate. There is no evidence that the resident was unable to access the carpark or reported specific incidences that a third party was using her space. The landlord also offered appropriate solutions to the recurring problems with the gate and the unauthorised use of the carpark.

Complaint handling

7. The landlord did not follow its 2-stage process outlined in its complaints policy by introducing an early resolution stage. Nor did it always send acknowledgements, as its policy required. The landlord took no steps to put right the time and trouble caused to the resident.

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.

8. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs of communal areas and spaces, which the carpark falls under. The repair logs show that, within the 12 months prior to the resident complaining, the landlord received reports that the electric gate was not working at least 4 times. It is apparent that the landlord completed repairs on each occasion. The fact it needed to compete several repairs is not a clear indication of a failure. As the landlord advised in its response, some of these related to damage caused by vandalism, which would have been outside of its control. We have not though been able to see if it completed these within a reasonable timescale, which its repairs policy indicates would have been its routine time of 20 working days.
9. Despite the gaps in the repair records, we have not seen evidence of an adverse impact on the resident from the gate not always working. The landlord sent 3 letters to the resident and other tenants updating them on the recurring problem and its actions to address it. We have also not seen, based on available records, that the problem stopped her from accessing the carpark. It was also reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to report incidences of not being able to use her space because of unauthorised parties. And there is no evidence that she did within the period concerned. As such, we find the landlord’s decision not to refund some of the resident’s rent was reasonable.
10. The landlord also took some appropriate actions to address the reported issues and to attempt to allay the resident’s concerns. It confirmed it was seeking a permanent solution to the gates being vandalised. It was also reasonable to agree to send letters to all residents about unauthorised use of the carpark, which we have seen it did on 4 August 2023. And to consider exploring a different system to catch non-permitholders using it. The landlord also confirmed its contractor checked the carpark daily. Therefore, we find the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns that she was unable to use her carpark space was fair and reasonable.

11. The landlord’s complaints policy and 2-stage process at the time aligned with the timescales and principles of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in use at the time. It was required to log and acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days, then respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and 20 working days at stage 2. Both responses would contain details about how to escalate the complaint through the landlord’s process and to us.
12. We have not seen that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 18 July 2023, which was not in line with its process. It did though respond within its published timescale on 1 August 2023. However, this was not the landlord’s stage 1 response and there was no mention of how the resident could escalate her complaint. So, it did not follow its complaints policy. Doing this effectively meant the resident had to go through a 3-stage process, which was a failing. The landlord did not recognise this or take any steps to put this right.
13. Again, we did not see that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s email of 2 August 2023 expressing dissatisfaction with its response. However, it did respond within 3 working days which was well within its timescales and would have reduced the overall time the resident was in its complaint process.
14. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request of 8 August 2023 to escalate her complaint within 1 working day, which was well within its prescribed timescale. It then responded within its stage 2 timescale on 5 September 2023.
15. We find the landlord acted unreasonably by adding an additional stage to the complaints process. It was also not open about how the resident could take her complaint further. These failings would have caused her a degree of unnecessary time and trouble from having to escalate her complaint twice. It also protracted the process, though this was partly mitigated by the landlord’s prompt response at stage 1. We have therefore awarded £50 compensation for the time and trouble caused within the range (£50-£100) of our remedies guidance for impacts that are minor and short lasting.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

16. Our 2019 spotlight report on repairs highlighted the value of landlords keeping clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail of repairs. This is so they can demonstrate that they have met their repair obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We encourage the landlord to consider our recommendations to improve its repairs record-keeping standards. This is because the repair logs were lacking in detail about when repairs were completed.

Communication

17. The landlord communicated with residents about the gate problem which was good practice.