Home Group Limited (202118097)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118097

Home Group Limited

6 July 2023

 

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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden maintenance and the associated service charge.
    2. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal cleaning and the associated service charge.
    3. the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of maintenance of the communal areas.
    4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident occupies the property, a one bedroom flat in a block of 12 flats, under an assured shorthold tenancy which began on 3 June 2013. Under the tenancy, the resident is liable to pay service charges in addition to rent.
  2. From 10 June 2021, the resident reported garden maintenance issues to the landlord. She continued to report them throughout June, August, September and October 2021, and she requested a refund of the related service charge. On 28 October 2021, the resident asked the landlord to formally respond to a complaint about garden maintenance and service charges. After the landlord contacted the resident on 2 November 2021 to clarify the complaint issues, she confirmed that she was requesting a service charge refund for garden maintenance; reported that the cleaner was not cleaning communal areas properly; and reported that the lock on the communal bin shed was broken.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 11 November 2021. It acknowledged issues with ground maintenance and confirmed a refund would be payable. It also confirmed that it would repair the bin shed lock. It noted the resident’s concerns about the communal cleaning and confirmed that its contract manager had arranged an inspection and found cleaning to be of a good standard. Following this, the landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 15 November 2021. It acknowledged problems with the ground maintenance service and confirmed that residents would be refunded the garden maintenance service charge for the period between April and October 2021.
  4. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. She said that the service charge refund should be from March 2020, not April 2021, and should include a refund for cleaning and maintenance of communal areas. On 22 November 2021, she requested escalation of the complaint.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2022. The landlord confirmed that it had investigated the matter but was not aware of any issues with grounds maintenance from March 2020, apart from a short period of time where contractors could not attend due to covid. It confirmed that as the cleaning standards were satisfactory, it would not refund this portion of the service charge. Finally, it explained that communal areas were redecorated every 7 years, and that this was funded through the rent rather than the service charge.
  6. The resident confirmed that she was unhappy with the landlord’s response and asked the Ombudsman to investigate. She believes that the landlord has not addressed all of the complaints issues she has raised, and that her service charge refund should be from March 2020, rather than April 2021.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when. While the Ombudsman can take a view on the position by reference to law and the lease agreement, if this is disputed, only a court or tribunal can offer a definitive and legally binding decision.
  2. This means this Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord met its obligations and took reasonable steps to resolve the complaint. In reaching a decision, the Ombudsman considers whether a landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden maintenance and the associated service charge.

  1. Under its policies, the landlord is obligated to closely manage the delivery of services and ensure that it offers value for money, which would include investigating reported problems with services and carrying out inspections if appropriate.
  2. The resident reports that there was a longstanding issue with poor garden maintenance and that this had been a problem since lockdown in March 2020. The information provided shows that she contacted the landlord on 10 June 2021 to report a specific problem with a large overgrown bush obstructing access along a path. The records note that she followed this up on 25 June 2021 and enquired about a service charge refund on this occasion. The landlord’s 2 November 2021 records of a telephone call with the resident about her complaint note she was concerned about a lack of garden maintenance from March to October 2021. The landlord proceeded to investigate the matter on this basis and determined that a refund should be paid to the residents in the block for the period from 1 April to 1 October 2021.
  3. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged problems with the garden maintenance and confirmed that it was planning to refund all residents in the block. It noted that the resident had stated on 2 November 2021 that the problems had been ongoing since March 2020, and it said it would investigate this further to determine the appropriate refund. The landlord then wrote to residents of the block to confirm it was refunding the grounds maintenance service charge between April 2021 and October 2021, totalling £126.48 per household; confirmed it was addressing problems with the contractor; and noted it would consider further refunds if problems continued. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it was not aware of any issues with grounds maintenance from March 2020, apart from a short period of time where contractors could not attend due to COVID-19, and so it would not provide any further refund for the grounds maintenance service charge.
  4. The Ombudsman notes that the resident believes that the refund should be backdated to March 2020. There are records of previous complaints from the resident about garden maintenance dating back to 2016 and 2017 in the evidence provided, however these are before the period mentioned by the resident in her complaint and escalation request and are therefore outside of the scope of this investigation. The first record from 2020 onwards of the resident reporting a problem with garden maintenance is dated 10 June 2021. Given there are no complaints from her within the records for 2020, and that the first complaint by her from 2020 onwards was in June 2021, the landlord’s rationale for its decision to refund from April to October 2021 is reasonable.
  5. Overall, in light of the actions taken by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers that the response to the resident’s complaint about garden maintenance was appropriate, and that the response offered reasonable redress for the acknowledged service failures of the contractor.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about communal cleaning and the associated service charge

  1. The first record of a complaint from the resident about the communal cleaning after 2020 was on 2 November 2021, when the landlord discussed the complaint with her. There are records of cleaning issues being reported by the resident in 2016 and 2019, but these fall outside the scope of this investigation. When the landlord became aware of the resident’s complaint, the records show that it arranged for its contract manager to investigate the matter. A site visit was carried out on 9 November 2021, and photographs were taken. The contract manager confirmed to the landlord that the cleaning at the building was of a good standard.
  2. In its stage 1 response, the landlord outlined the investigation it had carried out and said it considered that the cleaning was being carried out to an acceptable standard. In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident disagreed with the landlord’s conclusion, and noted she had doorbell footage of a dustpan and brush, rather than a vacuum cleaner, being used in the communal hallway. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s views, but confirmed that the contract manager and the housing manager had both inspected; that the cleaning was carried out to an acceptable standard; and that it would not be refunding the service charge for cleaning.
  3. The Ombudsman notes that the resident remains dissatisfied with the standard of cleaning and disputes the conclusion drawn by the landlord. However, as noted above, the Ombudsman’s role is not to examine and determine whether the cleaning was of an acceptable standard or decide whether the level of service charge is reasonable. Instead, the Ombudsman is required to consider the investigations carried out by the landlord to determine whether the landlord dealt appropriately with the resident’s complaint. In investigating the matter, arranging site visits by the contract manager and housing manager, and providing the resident with an explanation of its conclusion, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord acted appropriately in addressing this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the standard of maintenance of the communal areas

  1. In the resident’s initial conversation with the landlord about her complaint on 2 November 2021, she noted that the lock to the communal bin store was broken. This is the first time a report about this issue appears in the landlord’s records. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed that arrangements would be made to fix the lock, and correspondence from the landlord to the resident on 25 January 2022 confirmed the repair was scheduled for 11 February 2022. The resident was satisfied with the landlord’s response to this issue, and the response from the landlord was reasonable in terms of arranging to rectify the problem identified.
  2. After requesting escalation of her complaint to stage 2, the resident also reported in January 2022 that the condition of communal areas was unsatisfactory, citing holes in plaster in communal areas and problems with communal lights. Upon review of the records, this was the first time such issues had been reported by the resident and these issues were not raised by the resident in the stage 1 complaint or her request for escalation. The landlord outlined these issues of concern to the resident in the stage 2 response, but later in the response focused on the plaster and décor issues and explained its approach to cyclical repairs.
  3. The Ombudsman considers that this response was reasonable, as there is no indication that the impact of the plaster issues mentioned by the resident go beyond aesthetic, and the lease does not specify when cyclical works should be carried out. Where the landlord decides repairs are for its cyclical works programme and decides an appropriate timeframe for these, as in this case, it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine at what point these should be carried out.
  4. While the above is the case, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not go on to detail its actions for the lighting issue in its complaint response. The resident reported problems with broken lights again when she contacted the Ombudsman in May 2022, which it is unclear are the broken lights previously reported or new problems. The landlord should be given an opportunity to respond to the report about the communal lighting before responding as a formal complaint, nevertheless it would have been appropriate for it to confirm it would investigate the issue via its repairs service. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about the communal lighting in order to identify and rectify any problems.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will deal with complaints fairly and in a timely manner, and under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, complaints should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a stage 1 response provided within 10 working days. The general view is that an expression of dissatisfaction constitutes a complaint.
  2. The resident first reported the issue with garden maintenance on 10 June 2021, and on 25 June 2021 asked to speak to someone about the issues with garden maintenance and service charge. Records show she called the landlord again on 30 June 2021, when she again raised the service charge issue. There was further contact from the resident on 23 August 2021, 25 August 2021 and 30 September 2021, and then contacts on 7 and 19 October 2021 noted that she sounded distressed, and a call back was required to restore her faith in the landlord.
  3. However, this did not happen, and it was not until the resident contacted the landlord again on 28 October 2021, and noted that she had been in touch with the Ombudsman, that the landlord raised a formal complaint, contacted the resident on 2 November 2021, and issued a stage 1 response on 11 November 2021.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that from 7 October 2021 onwards, when the landlord was in receipt of expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident about its handling of matters, a complaint should have been raised in order for the landlord to respond under its complaint procedure. On this basis, the landlord’s 11 November 2021 response was over 3 weeks later than it should have been, and in excess of 10 working days. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for this delay in its stage 1 response, which was not appropriate and will have caused the resident distress and frustration.
  5. On 22 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that the complaint be escalated to stage 2 of the complaint process, explaining the reasons why, and also asked to discuss the service charge on 24 and 29 November 2021. There was further contact from the resident in January 2022, and on 18 January 2022 the landlord apologised for the delay in dealing with the stage 2 response and asked her to confirm her reasons for escalation. The resident responded on 19 January 2022, confirming the outstanding issues and her reasons, after which the landlord said on 25 January 2022 that it would be in contact within 25 working days. There was then further contact from the resident on 26 January 2022, 27 February 2022, 1 April 2022 and 30 April 2022 before the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2022.
  6. Under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, a stage 2 complaint response should be provided within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated, and an extension of this deadline beyond 10 working days should be agreed by both parties. In this case, the complaint was escalated on 22 November 2021, but a response was not issued until 31 May 2022, 6 months later. This was an excessive delay which the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for in its response on 31 May 2022, and meant that the overall delays that the resident experienced in the landlord’s complaints procedure equated to 7 months.
  7. The resident believes that some of the issues that she raised were not adequately addressed by the landlord in the complaints process. The resident did raise some further concerns about maintenance after escalating her complaint to stage 2 of the process, which included broken communal lights. As noted above, these were not part of the original complaint but having referred to them in the stage 2 response, the landlord should have addressed the report of broken lights and explained actions it was taking to refer these to its repairs service.
  8. Overall, the impact of the landlord’s complaint handling on the substantive issues was limited, however it is evident that prolonged effort was required from the resident to obtain responses to the complaint. This will have caused the resident frustration, resulted in unnecessary time and trouble and distress and inconvenience, and undermined her faith in the landlord. The landlord does not demonstrate that it acknowledged or remedied this, which is not appropriate and leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about garden maintenance and the associated service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. communal cleaning and the associated service charge.
    2. the standard of maintenance of the communal areas.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review its complaint handling and its staff training needs to ensure that:
    1. relevant staff raise complaints when expressions of dissatisfaction are received.
    2. it responds to and escalates complaints in a timely manner and in accordance with its complaint policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above within the timeframes stated.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to highlight a customer’s right to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal when responding to service charge disputes and service charge complaints.
  2. The landlord to, if it has not already done so, investigate the communal lighting issues reported by the resident and arrange to carry out any necessary repairs.