Home Group Limited (202006923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006923

Home Group Limited

31 August 2021

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 concerns the landlord’s response to:

the resident’s reports about the communal lift being out of service.
the resident’s reports about the faulty front entry gate.
the resident’s reports regarding graffiti and fly tipping.
the resident’s reports regarding parking enforcement.
the resident’s reports about the communal cleaning service.
the resident’s reports about the communal gardening service.
the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a three-bedroom flat on the second floor of a three-story block. The lease started on 1 January 2015.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 18 April 2021 that some of the Estate Management issues raised in her formal complaint remained an issue. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As the resident raised her formal complaint with the landlord on 1 June 2019 and the landlord provided its final complaint response on 8 October 2019, this report will only consider events during this timeframe as, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, any complaints regarding events since the date of the landlord’s final response must be first escalated through the landlord’s complaint process in order for us to investigate.
Reports from the landlord’s lift contractors dated 15 May 2019 indicate the communal lift of the resident’s block was inspected and decommissioned on this date as the electrical circuit “kept tripping” which the engineer had traced to the bottom two shaft light fittings being water damaged. New components were ordered.
The landlord contact notes show the resident called the landlord to chase the repair on 21 May 2019. There is no evidence of the landlord following up on this.
On 1 June 2019, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She said:

The lift been out of service for three weeks. When she had called the landlord about this, the first agent said they would put her on hold whilst they tried to contact the contractor for an update. Unfortunately, the call got cut off due to poor service in the area. When she called back, she spoke to a different agent who was unhelpful and told her they were unable to phone the contractor as that was not its policy. They told her someone would call her back however no one had. She explained that she had a seven-month old baby and lived on the second floor and due to the lift being out of operation, she was having to carry her baby, pushchair and other items up and down stairs which was “quite a chore” and had caused back pain. She was less inclined to go out due to this issue and this had affected her mental health. Three weeks with no repair or communication was unacceptable.
She was concerned about the lack of communication regarding the fault with the front entry gate (FEG) resulting in it being unable to close. It had been broken for at least two months due to it being vandalised. She was concerned about the quality of FEG. Since moving in four years, it had been left open due to damage for much of this period. The FEG should be more durable. The security of the residents was being jeopardised. Many residents had reported on several occasions that there were trespassers who fly tip. She felt unsafe when entering the development due to trespassers “lurking”.
Regarding fly tipping, the bin store at the back of the development by Block E had several items stacked up outside including sofas, mattresses, and cushions. This rubbish had been there for at least six weeks.
She was concerned about the graffiti on the walls of her block and blocks C and E which appeared to be done by the children who lived on the development. It had been on the walls for several weeks. This issue and fly tipping indicated the landlord did not carry out site inspections, as if it did, surely this would have been noticed and removed. The graffiti was “unsightly”. The landlord should be taking a firm position on this and making clear to residents what is unacceptable behaviour. She attached photos of the fly tipping and graffiti.
She was unhappy about the communal cleaning and gardening. The lift did not get cleaned, the litter was not being picked up and the weeds were not being removed from the paving and grass areas around the site. The resident asked should these issues not be addressed by the cleaner and gardener?
She was dissatisfied about the car parking arrangements. She had an allocated parking space that she paid £7000 for, which was added to her mortgage when she moved in four years ago. About eight months ago, the housing manager (HM) issued new parking permits that she said would prevent unauthorised parking. The resident said that she was asked to provide documents to the landlord including log book, insurance details, registration number and paperwork to show that she owned the space. She was told if she did not provide the necessary paperwork, her car would be removed so she provided this information to the landlord. The resident said however that this had not resolved the problem of unauthorised parking. This was extremely frustrating. She also said her visitors should be allowed to park their car in her space with the permit displayed, if she was not using it.

Her service charges increased year on year yet the landlord was not providing a satisfactory service to the residents.
On 3 June 2019, the landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint regarding the lift, FEG, graffiti, parking issues and communal services delivered. It said:
1. In respect to the lift, the works were starting today with the water from the lift being pumped out. It expected all parts replaced and the lift left in working order by the end of that week. It apologised for the time taken for the repair and for the lack of update provided about this. In regards to the service provided by its Customer Solution team when the resident called to report this, its process does not allow advisors to directly chase up contractors and this can only be done via the chase up team. Therefore, it sounded as if the second advisor she spoke to was following the correct process and first advisor was not.
2. In regards to the gate repair, it was aware of this issue, had the parts and was “chasing” a date for this work. Later on the same day, the landlord confirmed to the resident that an engineer was attending to fit parts to the gate on 10 June 2019. It said it expected the gate to be fully repaired on this date.
3. In regards to the other aspects of her complaint, this would be referred to her Local Office for them to review and advise. It said it would log her stage one complaint.
On 4 June 2019, the landlord confirmed it expected the lift to be repaired on 7 June 2019. In regards to the gate repair it reiterated this was booked in for 10 June 2019. It had contacted the Operations Manager (OM) in regard to the issues with graffiti, fly tipping and asked for this to be removed. The landlord also said it had also asked the OM to review the complaint with the cleaning and the gardening and parking situation. The landlord’s internal communications confirm the landlord asked its OM to review these aspects of her complaint.
On 7 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and advised that she had spoken to the lift repair person who had attended and was told that it would not be in working order that day as further parts were needed. The resident said that this was disappointing as she raised this four weeks ago. In a reply sent the same day the landlord advised it had spoken to the lift contractors who advised they would be attending “early next week” to complete the repairs and that no further new parts were needed.
On 11 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord to report the lift and gate repairs were not completed yesterday as previously advised. The resident asked for an update on these repairs.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same day with an update letter. It said:
1. The lift was due to be repaired on 10 June but further water ingress had been found. It had received a quote for further works and it was working with its Senior Maintenance team to arrange these works as soon as possible.
2. The repair to the gate had been booked in for 10 June 2019, however this had not been completed due to poor weather in the area on this date. This had now been booked for when the weather was expected to improve on 17 June 2019. It would continue to keep her updated on this repair.
3. It was sorry but it could not give an update on the communal cleaning and maintenance of the block as requested as it was still awaiting this information from its Operational Team (OT). Similarly, it had been trying to discuss the parking situation with the OT however it did not have any further information on this.
4. The graffiti and the fly tipping had been inspected by a HM and a works order would be raised for this to be removed. It did not have a date for this yet but the works were being arranged.
On 17 June 2019, the resident emailed the landlord and she confirmed that the waste had been removed.
On 17 June 2019, the landlord’s security contractors attended to repair the FEG. However, the landlord received a report from another resident from the estate later that day that the gate was no longer working. The landlord’s security contractor attended again to repair the gate on 18 June 2019. On 21 June 2019 the landlord received a further report of them not working and security contractors were called back to repair the FEG. The landlord’s internal communications show that it asked its HMs who were due to visit the estate on 24 June 2019 to: check the CCTV for footage on 18 June to see if the cause of the faults were vandalism or due to another reason.
The landlord sent a response to the resident on 21 June 2019. It was satisfied that the graffiti and waste had now been removed and advised that Housing Managers (HMs) were visiting on 24 June 2019 at 1 pm to walk around the estate to observe the parking issues, cleaning issues and ground maintenance.
On 21 June 2091, the landlord’s maintenance team and lift contractor attended the lift again and found that water had re-filled the pit after a second attempt to pump out the water. They reported to the landlord that they suspected the leak originated from the roof but could not find access to the roof.
The landlord’s HMs visited the estate as planned on 24 June 2019 and internal communications indicate they reported:
1. parking – residents had expressed concerns about the current parking arrangements. There was unauthorised parking and action was needed to ensure permits available for those without bays and those with bays could be issued with visitors permits.
2. insufficient cleaning – only one cleaner was visiting once a week. They had spoken to the cleaning manager who agreed that two cleaners shall attend per week. This would be piloted for several weeks to see if there was an improvement.
3. ground maintenance – they will be arranging for grounds maintenance contractor to visit the estate.
4. CCTV of the gate – they had not been able to retrieve the information from the CCTV as this could only be accessed online but would endeavour to review this.
Sometime in late June 2019 the landlord hand delivered letters to the occupants of the resident’s block advising scaffolding would be erected in order to repair the roof as water from this had been leaking into the lift shaft.
On 1 July 2019, the landlord sent a stage one response to the resident which stated:
1. Since she raised her complaint, it had arranged for the fly tipping to be removed and for the graffiti to be cleared from the walls. However, it acknowledged her call of earlier that day when she advised only half of the graffiti had been removed (graffiti remained on block C and E) and that she would send further photos of the parts not removed.
2. It was in the process of reviewing the parking conditions with the company it used to regulate the parking in order to improve the parking situation. It was considering the best ways to monitor the parking and to issue new parking permits to those who do not own a bay however this review was still in its “early days” so it could not provide further details.
3. Regarding the lift repair, its standard contactor initially attended on 3 June 2019 to check areas surrounding the lift for any leaks from the pipework. Prior to this it was reported the presence of water was due to vandalism and so the building was not checked sooner for leaks. It apologised for its late attendance. Its lift contractors then attended on 7 June 2019 when the lift pit was drained and lift parts replaced. It explained that water had re-filled lift pit when it had returned on 10 June 2019 to complete works. Due to this a joint inspection of the lift shaft was requested. It and the lift contractors completed this inspection on 21 June 2019 when it was found the roof had been leaking into the lift pit. Therefore, it had raised further works for the roof to be fixed however as it needed to arrange scaffolding, it could not yet confirm the next repair date.
4. Regarding the FEG repair, unfortunately this was taking longer than anticipated to repair. Initially the repair was booked in for 10 June 2019 however due to the rain this was not completed. Following this the works were booked for 17 June and 18 June. On 18 June 2019, the FEG was repaired and it was reported the same day another fault had occurred. Its security specialist contractors attended on 21 June to repair the gate however, it malfunctioned again shortly after. Its contractors advised they felt this was due to vandalism again. It was currently arranging for the Maintenance Surveyor, HM and security contractors to jointly attend. This visit had not yet been booked as it was also gathering the evidence from the CCTV to review to establish if vandalism occurred on 21 June 2019.
The landlord advised that, as requested by the resident on the phone that day, it was closing her stage one complaint and escalating this to stage two. It said she would receive a response within the week.
On 8 July 2019, the resident called the landlord to reiterate her request for her complaint to be escalated to stage two as not all the issues had been resolved including the gate and lift which remained unrepaired. On 9 July 2019, the landlord logged the resident’s complaint at stage two and sent her an email confirming this.
The landlord received a further report of vandalism to the gate on 10 July 2019.
On 14 July 2019, the resident enquired with the landlord about when she could expect its stage two response. On 15 July 2019, it replied explaining it had 20 working days to respond and that the twentieth working day was 6 August 2019 however it said depending on the complexity of a complaint it may take them longer than 20 working days. It said it was chasing for a date for the scaffolding to be erected and if its maintenance contractors did not supply this by next week, it would look to outsource this work. The landlord’s internal communications show it was in regular communication with its maintenance contractor chasing scaffolding until it was erected on 22 July 2019. The landlord then booked in the maintenance contractor to carry out works to the roof between 31 July 2019 and 2 August 2019. The landlord confirmed this to the resident on 22 July 2019. The landlord’s internal communications also show it booked in the lift contractor for the week beginning 5 August 2019 to carry out the lift repair.
On 25 July 2019, the landlord’s internal emails noted there was a man-safe system present on the roof of the block that needed to be validated before its maintenance contractor could progress the leak remedial works. The landlord subsequently booked in its safety contractor to provide the “arrest system” inspection on 9 August 2019 which was the earliest available slot. The landlord notified its maintenance contractor and roofing works were moved to commence on 9 August 2019.
On 25 July 2019, the landlord’s internal emails also noted that its operative and security contractors had visited that day to look at the FEG and that they suspected they were being repeatedly vandalised. It proposed to get two quotes; one for a repair on a like for like basis and; one for an upgrade so the arm and motor of the FEG were installed underground to make it more difficult to vandalise. The landlord requested quotes for these work from its security contractors. The landlord’s internal emails indicate that it chased its contractors for these on 14 August 2019.
On 29 July 2019, the landlord’s internal emails noted that its HM confirmed the CCTV footage had been reviewed and there was no evidence of vandalism on 18 June, 21 June 2019 or 10 July 2019, rather they said it looked like the gates were malfunctioning and rust around the sensor was referenced. On 1 August 2019, its operative reiterated that he and the contractors who inspected the FEG on 25 July 2019 believed it was vandalism and they stood by the previously recommended proposal. They were awaiting the quotations for these works.
On 29 July 2019, the landlord’s internal emails also noted that it was still working with its parking company to decide the best arrangements for improving the parking situation.
On 2 August 2019, the landlord emailed the resident advising they were still awaiting the quotations for the FEG works but once these had been received, a decision would be made as to how it would proceed with repairs. It also advised that the roof repairs were scheduled for 9 August 2019 once the safety system had been checked, also booked in for 9 August 2019.Furthermore, its HM team was liaising with the relevant parties regarding the additional estate issues and would address all the points raised in its stage two response which will be issued on completion of the repairs.
The man-safety inspection was passed on 9 August 2019. However, the landlord’s internal communications indicate that as this had been completed in the latter part of the day the roofers were unable to start work on 9 August 2019 as scheduled. This work was re-booked for 20 August 2019.
On 15 August 2019, the resident asked for an update on the repair of the lift as she noted there had not been any progress. The landlord sent out an update on the lift situation to all residents on 16 August 2019 and also advised the resident that it was chasing its security contractor for an update on the works to the FEG and said it was hoping to confirm further on this shortly.
The landlord’s maintenance team and lift contractor inspected the lift shaft and roof on 20 August 2019 and reported to the landlord that they had found them to be in good order.
The landlord’s internal communications show that on 22 August 2019 it decided to progress the repair to the FEG by opting for the second quote from its security contractor to upgrade the FEG.
On 27 August 2019, the landlord advised the resident that it was awaiting an update from its maintenance team and contractors and hoped to update her the following week.
On 3 September 2019, the landlord provided an update to the resident on the lift and FEG issues. It advised regarding the lift, no sign of a leak was found to roof when inspected on 20 August 2019. The landlord said this was surprising given the information provided in the original report from the lift contractor. It advised that a further joint visit by it, the lift and maintenance contractors had been arranged for 6 September 2019 to carry out further investigations into the cause of the water. Regarding the FEG, it confirmed it had made the decision to upgrade the gates so that the arm and motor is installed underground to make access and damage more difficult. It anticipated this would take approximately six weeks for the gates to be made once the quotes are accepted and it would confirm further on this as soon as possible. It said it would be implementing an action plan in relation to parking, grounds maintenance, cleaning and it would provide further details on this in due course.
On 6 September 2019, the landlord and contractors visited the site to further investigate the lift. Its Maintenance Surveyor thought the source of issue may be the external operational pump. The landlord called the pump company to request they send an engineer. This was confirmed by the pump company during visits between 9 and 14 September 2019 when they tested and found that both the external pumps were not operational. They completed the repair to the pumps by 14 September 2019.
On 11 September 2019, the resident emailed the landlord saying she was “extremely disappointed” about the progress of her complaint. She said the FEG and lift remained unrepaired, the graffiti had not been removed and there was still unauthorised parking in the car park. She requested compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by the issues.
On 13 September 2019, the landlord provided an action plan to the resident which listed actions including: installation of FEG the upgrade and an extra CCTV camera; completion of lift repair; additional weekly cleaning visits and; HMs monitoring of grounds maintenance during fortnightly site inspections.
In regards to parking, the action plan noted there had been issues due to incorrect information and parking permits issued by a previous HM. It also stated that it had agreed a new arrangement with its parking company for issuing parking permits. Letters had also been sent to residents informing of the new arrangements. This letter set out the rules and regulations for who can and cannot use the car park and process for issuing parking permits.
On 20 September 2019, the landlord provided the resident with an update on the lift repair advising that it was “confident” they had “finally” found the cause of the leak. It said “by a process of elimination” its operatives had found an underwater leak from the drainage that was tracking into the lift pit. When the drain covers were lifted, it was clear the shaft was full of water and that the pump machine to push water to the main drain was not working and both pumps had tripped out suggesting this might be a cause of the lift shaft being flooded. The pumps had been repaired and it had now instructed the lift contractors to complete works to the lift. It was also looking into installing a pump in the lift shaft to prevent the same situation arising should the external pumps shut down and it would confirm further on this and the date for the lift car works as soon as possible
On 24 September 2019, the lift was repaired and on 25 September 2019, the landlord confirmed to the resident by email that the lift was now operational.
On 8 October 2019, the landlord provided a stage two response in which it stated it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and could confirm that the issues raised had now been resolved:

Regarding the FEG its security specialist contractors attended on 7 October and installed a new gate operator, a new operator bracket to the left hand side gate and also replaced the internal lower left hand side safety edge due to the rubber profile being damaged when the motor was broken off. This was now fully functional. Due to the faults being determined as vandalism previous repairs completed in relation to the FEG had not been charged to residents as part of the service charge. Whilst it was entitled to recover the costs of repairs from residents, it was offering financial recompense by reducing the charges for the cost of the upgrade by 50%. Therefore only 50% of this would be added to the service charge. It also agreed to pay for an additional CCTV camera to monitor the gate area which would not be charged to residents. This additional equipment would be installed in direct view of the gates to help prevent and evidence future vandalism and this would be closely monitored going forward. In acknowledgment of the time and effort the resident had spent in chasing these repairs it offered her compensation in the sum of £75.00.
Regarding the repair of the lift, it initially believed the cause of the issue was due to a leak from the roof shaft however it was eventually determined to be an underwater leak from the drainage that was tracking into the lift pit. It reiterated events up to 24 September 2019 when the lift was successfully repaired and put back in service. It said it was also installing a pump in the lift shaft to prevent the same situation arising should the external pumps shut down. It confirmed it was providing the resident with a service charge refund for a total of 19 weeks while the lift was out of service (15 May to 25 September) which equated to £10.64. It confirmed she would receive a cheque for this within seven to ten working days. In acknowledgment of the disruption the resident had experienced in relation to the lift it would also like to award her with compensation in the sum of £75.
Regarding graffiti, this was not done by spray paint but chalk and it had now been removed. Letters would be sent regarding children drawing on the walls to prevent any further occurrences.
Regarding ground maintenance, its HM met with its grounds maintenance contractor on site to discuss the issues and concerns that had been raised by residents. The standards had improved since this conversation and its HMs were monitoring this during fortnightly inspections.
Regarding cleaning, its HM met with cleaning company who agreed that the standard of the communal cleaning service was not acceptable. It had now been agreed that they will carry out extra visits for at least three months to make up for missed attendance and were now cleaning every Tuesday and Thursday. Again, this was being monitored during fortnightly estate inspections, serving rectification notices where required.
Regarding parking, it had been working closely with the parking company to put an effective arrangement in place. Letters had been sent to residents explaining the rules and regulations regarding who can and cannot use car park. It had now been agreed that customers who provide MOT, Insurance and log book can be issued with parking permits on a first come first serve basis. The recent letter also informed residents that it was not responsible for any parking tickets issued as a result of parking in an incorrect area. Its HM team would keep a log of all permits issued and the parking company would not be monitoring the scheme until it was satisfied all permits had been delivered to residents. Any further queries in relation to estate service can be logged via its Customer Service Centre and these will be passed on to its Housing Management team. The landlord offered its sincerest apologies for the inconvenience these matters had caused.

On 14 October 2019, the resident advised she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two response and would not be accepting the £150 offered.
In her communication to the Ombudsman on 18 April 2021, the resident said she was unhappy about the compensation offered by the landlord for the issues with the lift, gate, car park and for its poor management/ investigation of these and the other issues raised. She spent a lot of time chasing updates from the landlord both during the complaint period and in the years prior to that. She also said that the graffiti on the walls of blocks C and E referred to at the time of her complaint, remained.

Assessment and findings

Lease

The resident’s lease at clause 5.3 states the landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and (in the event of the landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve; all structural parts of the building, the roof, foundations, joist and external walls; water apparatus and machinery and; the common parts. Clause 7 of the lease sets out service charge provisions including the landlord’s right to recover costs for performance of its covenants under clause 5.3 to repair, redecorate, renew the structure and in relation to lighting and cleaning of the common parts.

Resident’s reports about the communal lift being out of service

The landlord is responsible for repairing the communal lift. The lift was put out of service on 15 May 2019 after the landlord’s lift contractor found water damage to the components. As this issue affected the usability of the lift, the landlord should have taken steps sooner than it did to investigate the source of the water in order rectify the issue. In its stage one response, the landlord did apologise for its late attendance to investigate the leak; this was appropriate. However, its delay in investigating the leak from 15 May 2019 to 3 June 2019 and the lack of communication about this to the resident during this timeframe, was a shortfall in service, particularly as she had called the landlord about this issue on 21 May 2019 asking for an update which it did not follow up on.
The landlord initially drained the water from the lift pit on 7 June 2019 but a couple of days later the water had refilled the pit. The landlord and its contractor suggested that the water may be coming from a leak in the roof. However, having inspected the roof on 20 August 2019 it became clear that this was not the case. It was not until 6 September 2019 that the landlord established that the cause of the water was that the pumps at the external pumping station were not pushing the water into the main drain, resulting in water accumulating in the lift shaft. The pump installers then repaired the pumps on 14 September 2019 and the lift was repaired and back in operation by 24 September 2019.
As a result of misdiagnosis of the source of the leak, and the delay in erecting scaffolding to investigate the roof, it took the landlord more than four months to resolve the leak into the lift pit. There is no pre-defined timescale given for this type of responsive repair in the landlord’s Property Management policy. However, bearing in mind the impact caused by the lift being out of service, particularly on those residents on the second and third floors, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to prioritise this repair as urgent. It did not do so following the initial report of the leak from its lift contractor although the evidence demonstrates that from late June 2019 onwards, the landlord worked hard to co-ordinate investigations and site visits by relevant contractors to progress a resolution. Nonetheless, due to the various issues, the repair to the lift took longer than was reasonable. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage two response when it offered the resident £75 for the disruption she experienced in relation to the lift. Further, it said it would provide a service charge refund for a total of 19 weeks while the lift was out of service (15 May to 25 September) which equated to £10.64; this was added to the resident’s rent account on 14 October 2019. The landlord also confirmed it was installing a pump in the lift shaft to prevent the same situation arising should the external pumps shut down. Therefore, the compensation offered by the landlord in its complaints process together with the service charge refund and its commitment to put in place measures to reduce the risk of the issue reoccurring, is sufficient to show that the landlord has provided reasonable redress.

Resident’s reports about the faulty front entry gate.

The landlord is responsible for repairing the FEG. In her formal complaint of 1 June 2019, the resident said the FEG was broken and expressed a concern about the security of the estate being jeopardised due to the FEG frequently breaking and therefore being left open. In response, the landlord arranged for its specialist security contractors to attend on 10 June 2019 to repair the FEG. The landlord’s Property Management Policy does not specify any timescales for responsive repairs, however, as the landlord arranged for its repair within 10 days of receiving the resident’s complaint, this was sufficiently prompt although it is acknowledged the repair was delayed until 17 or 18 June 2019 due to poor weather (it is unclear from the available evidence which date the repair was provided).
However, due to the landlord receiving further reports of the gate malfunctioning from residents later that day on 18 June 20 and then on 21 June 2019 and 10 July 2019, the landlord asked its security contractor to provide a quote for upgrading the FEG. This was because after inspecting the FEG with contractors, it believed the main cause to be vandalism. It is noted however that its HM subsequently advised that having retrieved and reviewed the CCTV evidence, they did not find evidence of vandalism and rusty materials including the sensor was referenced as a possible cause of the FEG malfunctioning. It is evident that there was a lack of consensus regarding the cause of issue, however after notifying residents of the planned upgrade works to the FEG, it went ahead with these which was completed on 7 October 2019.
The timeframe taken by the landlord however to deliver the FEG upgrade was more than four months after the resident raised her formal complaint. Whilst it is reasonable to expect a longer timescale to allow for the landlord to arrange quotes and finalise proposed works, the resident was caused inconvenience by the FEG not functioning as it should during this prolonged period. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation in its stage two response. Its offer of £75 in compensation was in line with its Discretionary Compensation policy. The landlord also offered to reduce the charges for the cost of the upgrade by 50% and confirmed only 50% of the charges would be added to the service charge. The landlord is entitled under the lease to charge for this cost via residents’ service charges and so its offer to bear 50% of the cost is reasonable. It also confirmed it had installed an extra CCTV camera to increase security and that it would not be charging residents for this. The compensation, reduction in the cost of the upgrade FEG and the extra security measure put in place puts right the shortfalls in service when dealing with reports of a faulty FEG. Therefore, the redress offered by the landlord sufficient resolves the complaint.

Reports regarding graffiti and fly tipping

The landlord is responsible for ground maintenance of the estate and for carrying out area inspections. Its Neighbourhood and Estate Management policy states it will proactively address issues raised. When the resident raised the issue of graffiti on the walls of blocks B,C and E in the estate and also fly tipping at the bin store at the rear of block E, the landlord raised a work order for the fly tipping and graffiti to be removed. This indicates the landlord acted appropriately in line with its Neighbourhood and Estate Management policy. The rubbish was removed on 14 June 2019 however whilst it is evident that work to remove the graffiti did take place by 21 June 2019, it is noted the resident subsequently disputed that it had all been removed. She said graffiti remained on the walls of blocks C and E. The landlord asked the resident to provide photos which she did. In its final response, the landlord noted that the graffiti had not been done in spray paint but chalk and reiterated that it had been removed. The photos provided to the Ombudsman indicate that chalk markings had not been fully removed from all walls and the resident told us on 18 April 2021 that the graffiti referred to at the time of her complaint remains. As the landlord’s records do not demonstrate that it took further action to fully remove the graffiti that remained, this constitutes evidence of the landlord not doing what it said it would do, therefore, this is a service shortcoming. Whilst this is not sufficiently serious to constitute a service failure, it is appropriate for the landlord to rectify this shortcoming therefore a Recommendation has been included below to reflect this.

Parking enforcement

The resident has a parking space allocated to her which she purchased as part of her lease. In her formal complaint she raised concerns about how car parking was managed on the estate. She said there was unauthorised parking in car park, despite the landlord introducing a permit scheme eight months previously. In response, the landlord’s HMs visited the estate to “observe” the parking issues and subsequently, in its stage one response, advised the resident that they were reviewing the parking arrangements with its parking company with a view to improving this situation. This was an appropriate approach to take as it recognised there had been prior problems with parking enforcement; according to the action plan it provided to the resident, this was due to a former HM providing incorrect information and parking permits to residents. The landlord subsequently introduced new arrangements to issue parking permits for those residents without allocated spaces on a “on a first come first serve basis” and it sent a letter to residents explaining the rules and regulations. This letter made clear this only applied to bays that were not already allocated. The new arrangements were echoed in its final response to the resident.
Therefore, as the landlord reviewed the issues with parking enforcement highlighted by the resident and subsequently introduced a new system to address the problems, this was adequate address and therefore the Ombudsman consider this sufficiently resolves the complaint.

Cleaning service

The landlord is responsible for providing communal cleaning services. In her formal complaint the resident raised a concern that the communal areas were not being sufficiently cleaned. The landlord arranged for the HMs to visit the estate on 24 June 2019 for “a walkabout” in order to observe the issues being complained about, including cleaning. Due to feedback from its HMs that communal areas were not being sufficiently cleaned, the landlord met with its cleaning contractor who agreed to increase cleaning hours and for cleaners to attend twice a week instead of once for at least three months to see if this resulted in an improvement. This was confirmed by the landlord in its final response and it is evident this arrangement commenced in July 2019 and was ongoing at the time of the landlord’s final response. The landlord also increased HMs inspections of the resident’s estate from monthly to fortnightly to ensure closer monitoring of ground maintenance including cleaning.
As the landlord has demonstrated it put in place sufficient measures to address the resident’s complaint about inadequate cleaning, it acted appropriately. This reasonably resolved the complaint.

Gardening service

The landlord is responsible for providing communal gardening. In her formal complaint the resident reported that weeds growing in the paving and grassy areas around the site were not being tended to. The landlord’s internal communications indicate that following the resident’s formal complaint, it inquired with its LO and OT about whether its contract with gardeners included weeding. However, there is no evidence of the landlord taking a position on this issue during the complaints process or of it providing clarification over this concern to the resident during the complaint responses. It is acknowledged that the landlord has provided evidence of a landscaping contract which suggests the removal of weeds from the paths and tarmac areas is something its estate gardeners are expected to do. However, it is unclear if this contract applied at the time of the resident’s complaint. Due to the landlord’s failure to address this concern in its complaint responses and as there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the landlord took action in response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord has not shown it responded to the complaint about the garden service in a reasonable manner. It is reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £25 for this service shortfall which is in line with its Discretionary Compensation policy.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s Complaints, Compliments and Comments policy states it operates a two stage complaints process where at stage two it will provide a resolution within 20 working days of the resident’s escalation request. If its investigation exceeds this timeframe it will write to explain why.
The resident first requested escalation of her complaint to stage two on 1 July 2019 and reiterated this the landlord on 8 July 2019. The landlord did not issue its stage two response until approximately three months later on 8 October 2019. Whilst it did explain this was because of the delays with resolving the outstanding complaint issues, this significantly prolonged the complaint period. It is also evident this resulted in the resident having to spend a disproportionate amount of time chasing the landlord for a final response. Therefore, the resident was caused inconvenience due to the landlord not following its complaint process. It is noted that the landlord failed to recognise this in its stage two complaint response, which was unreasonable. Therefore, the landlord shall pay to the resident compensation of £75.00 for the inconvenience caused by its failure to adhere to its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports about the communal lift being out of service.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports about the faulty FEG.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports regarding graffiti and fly tipping.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports about parking enforcement.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports regarding the communal cleaning service.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord regarding the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports regarding the communal garden service.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

There was an initial delay by the landlord in investigating the source of the leak which caused to the communal lift to be put out of service for an extended period of time. Following the resident’s formal complaint, the available evidence indicates the landlord did follow up on this with relevant contractors however due to further issues including a misdiagnosis of the source of the leak, there was a significant delay with the repair of the lift. The landlord offered compensation in its complaints process in recognition of its service failure together with a service charge refund and it also agreed to install an internal pump to reduce the risk of the issue reoccurring.
The landlord initially reasonably responded to reports of the FEG malfunctioning by arranging for the security contactor to repair it. However because the FEG repeatedly malfunctioned meaning it was left open allowing trespassers to enter the estate, the landlord proposed to upgrade the FEG. This was appropriate however there was a considerable delay with upgrade works. The landlord offered the resident compensation in recognition of this and confirmed it would only charge the residents 50% of the cost of the upgrade, via the service charges. It also paid for a further CCTV camera as an extra security measure.
The landlord promptly responded to the resident’s reports of fly tipping and graffiti by arranging for their removal which was appropriate. However, as there is no evidence of the landlord addressing the resident’s further report that some graffiti markings remained, this was a service shortcoming however this is not sufficiently serious to constitute a service failure.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of unauthorised parking in the car park by visiting the estate to observe the issues. It then carried out a review of the parking arrangement with the company it used to enforce parking and subsequently introduced new arrangements for issuing parking permits for those without allocated bays. It explained the new rules and regulation to residents. Therefore, the landlord sufficiently addressed this aspect of the complaint during the complaints process.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of unclean communal areas by visiting the estate to review this. It then met with its cleaning company that agreed to increase cleaning visits from once to twice per week. The landlord increased HMs inspections of the resident’s estate from monthly to fortnightly to ensure closer monitoring of ground maintenance including cleaning. Therefore, the measures taken by the landlord reasonably resolved this complaint.
Following the resident’s complaint about the gardening service at the estate, the landlord’s internal communications demonstrate it initially contacted its OT to enquire about the communal gardening service at the estate. However, the landlord did not address this aspect of the complaint in the complaints process and there is insufficient evidence to show it took appropriate steps to resolve this complaint.
The landlord did not follow the timescales stated in its complaints process when dealing with the resident’s complaint at stage two. This resulted in a protracted complaint period which caused the resident additional inconvenience due to her having to chase for a final response.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident the compensation of £150 offered in the complaints process, if it had not already done so.
2. Pay the resident additional compensation in the sum of £100, made up of £25 for its failure with regards to the gardening service and £75 for its complaint handling failures.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Take action to fully remove the graffiti that remains on the walls of blocks C and E in the resident’s estate