Home Group Limited (202216840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216840

Home Group Limited

6 February 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Response to reports of communal repair and maintenance issues.
3. Actions in respect of the resident not having custody of his child.
4. Response to the resident’s subject access request.
5. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider whether all aspects of a case can be investigated. The following matters are outside of the jurisdiction of this Service and do not form part of this investigation:
1. This Service cannot investigate matters which have been considered by a court such as the resident’s loss of custody of his child or the reasons for this (paragraph 41 (c)).
2. This service does not consider complaints about subject access requests as this is a matter for the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) instead (paragraph 42 (j)).

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property which is a flat within a block. He has lived there since 2012. The block of flats is managed by a management company.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states as follows:
1. The landlord will provide services for which the resident pays a service charge (£17.21 per week). A copy of such services has not been provided to this Service.
2. The landlord has an obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, common entrances and common parts including electric lighting.
3. Under the right to repair, if the landlord has failed in its duty to carry out a “qualifying repair” within the specified timescale and after a further request it fails to complete the repair, the resident can make a claim for compensation.
Under the right to repair scheme an insecure external door or lock and a faulty door entry phone are both classed as qualifying repairs. The scheme sets out a response timeframe of 1 working day for an insecure door and 7 working days for a faulty door entry phone. The scheme states that if such repairs are not completed within the stated timeframe, compensation up to £50 per issue can be awarded.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 6 hours and compete these within 24 hours. Routine repairs will be completed within 14 calendar days. It aims to complete the repair at the first visit. If this is not possible it should keep the resident informed of when the repair will be completed.
The landlord’s property management policy states that where repairs have not been completed satisfactorily or within pre-defined timescales, it will offer compensation.
The landlord’s complaints policy states as follows:
1. It will respond to complaints in a timely manner and in accordance with legislation, regulation and appropriate Ombudsman Services.
2. There may be occasions where it is fitting for it to make a good will gesture or to award compensation. Compensation is used to offset against any rent, service charges or other housing related debt owed except in exceptional circumstances.
3. Injury or damage to personal belongings, property or homes are dealt with as insurance claims.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlord’s should respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. If additional time is required the landlord should keep the resident informed of the progress of the consideration of the complaint.

Summary of events

As stated above, this investigation does not focus on historical issues, however the resident has provided the following as background information to his complaint:
1. Issues with his neighbours started in approximately 2014 following reports that his son was being noisy and playing football. This was the start of a “7 year abuse streak”.
2. He stated that since around 2015, the front communal door had been broken and left insecure on a regular basis. Around 2017 and 2018 someone accessed the block via the insecure front door and threw a “fire bomb” up the stairs on 2 occasions.
3. His cars had been vandalised in the communal carpark between 2015 and 2017.
4. He installed his own CCTV camera near his front door in around 2018. The landlord helped him with the required CCTV recording stickers and there had been no issues in the inside communal area since.
5. The resident advised this Service that the events since 2015 had caused him to have “mental breakdown”, suffer from paranoia and to be medicated for depression and anxiety.
On 12 July 2020 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord about the historical issues of his cars having been damaged and fires in the block. He stated he had been requesting that the landlord install CCTV cameras for 6 years. The landlord liaised with the management company in respect of the possibility of installing CCTV. The management company subsequently advised the landlord that it had no plans to install CCTV as this would have to be paid for by all 30 leaseholders. It was not required as there were no similar ASB issues in the other parts of the block.
On 2 December 2020 the landlord contacted the management company and stated that the resident had reported that the main front door of the block would not lock and was a security risk. It asked the management company to repair this. Internal correspondence from the landlord indicates that it was unsure if it or the management company was responsible for the communal repairs.
On 10 December 2020 the landlord contacted the police and requested disclosure of any crimes recorded at the property. This Service has not seen a response from the police.
On 8 Janaury 2021 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. The communal repairs had been carried out.
2. A fire extinguisher was not required and CCTV would not be installed.
3. He would need to pursue an insurance claim for damage to his car. It provided details on how to do so and on its complaints procedure.
On 14 Janaury 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that until security issues had been dealt with he would not be paying any rent or service charges.
On 21 Janaury 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident and noted as follows:
1. It had witnessed that the communal front door did not close properly. It had asked the management company to action this.
2. It repeated its offer to provide the resident with a dashcam as a gesture of goodwill. He had declined this as he did not feel it would be a deterrent.
3. The resident had stated that the courts would not allow his son to stay with him as the building was not safe.
On 19 February 2021 the landlord responded at stage 1 to the resident’s email of 14 Janaury 2021 and stated as follows:
1. It reiterated that CCTV would not be installed in the car park and fire extinguishers would not be provided.
2. It re-offered dashcam to the resident which would provide “24hour 7days per week recording” to act as a deterrent. It advised it would pay for this and gave the resident 8 weeks to accept this offer.
3. It advised that vandalism would be a matter for the police. It had not received crime reference numbers from the resident despite him saying he would provide these in January 2021.
4. The communal front door had been fixed by the management company on 10 February 2021.
5. It enclosed information on its complaints procedure.
There is a gap in correspondence for almost a year until 7 January 2022 when the landlord asked the resident to make contact to discuss arrears.
On 11 Janaury 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and stated as follows:
1. He had been raising issues with the landlord since 2015 and had provided 31 crime reference numbers for “offences” committed by other tenants.
2. 3 of his vehicles had been written off due to vandalism in the carpark. He had to park elsewhere and got parking tickets of £90 a time for doing so. The communal car park was so dark that he had installed his own sensor light. He paid a service charge for use of the communal carpark but should not have to pay this.
3. There had been 2 fires set in the building while his child was in his care (2017 and 2018). Social Services had written a letter to the landlord to “pressure” it to secure the building and provide CCTV. The landlord had “swept this under the carpet”.
4. Bikes had been stolen from the bike shed.
5. “Vandals” had tampered with the gas and electricity, turning them on and off. This had caused him to lose a freezer full of food.
6. Someone had glued the keyhole of his door so he was unable to access his property until the landlord had sent a contractor.
7. The communal front door had been broken regularly over the years and had not been fixed.
8. The ongoing issues led to him having depression, anxiety, hospital operations, and paranoia where he would sit up all night worrying. In addition he lost custody of his child as the “building was deemed unsafe to be in by a family judge”.
9. He would “not stop” until the security issues were resolved and he was compensated for his loses, damages and health issues. He stated that his loses totalled £16,000, in addition to £1000 in parking tickets. He also stated that he had been paying a service charge for 6 years for services not received.
On 19 Janaury 2022 the landlord advised the resident that as it had not heard from him following its response to his complaint the year before (19 February 2021), it had closed his complaint. It asked if he wanted to be referred to its insurance team to make a claim for damages. It also advised it could open a new complaint in respect of the disputed service charges.
The resident responded the same day and stated as follows:
1. He requested the service charges be “challenged”.
2. He wanted to make a complaint about the landlords lack of action in response to the crime reference numbers he had provided and its lack of action to make the property safe.
3. The landlord had closed complaints without resolving matters.
4. He asked for the insurance team to contact him.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint (from 11 January 2022) at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. The management company was responsible for the door entry system, car park, cleaning, electrical testing and fire risk assessments of the communal areas. The management company had received one report on 4 October 2021 about the communal front door. The lock had been cleaned and was left fully operational. It had received no further reports of an issue with the communal door since then.
2. It had previously declined the request for CCTV in the communal carpark and referred the resident back to its response of 19 February 2021.
3. Instances of ASB should be reported to the police and the crime reference number provided to the landlord. It had previously requested these but had not received them from the resident.
4. It had received no other complaints from residents within the block regarding the services provided by the management company, it therefore could not offer a refund of the service charge.
5. It advised the resident that he should escalate his complaint within 8 weeks.
On 4 March 2022 the resident escalated his complaint and stated as follows:
1. The issues had started in 2014 and he had been complaining for 7 years.
2. The landlord was aware of a number of reports in respect of the communal front door and the door to his property. Each time his door was broken he had to take time off work causing him a loss of earnings of over £1500.
3. Social Services had written to the landlord (it is not clear when) but instead of securing the door and installing cameras the landlord had offered to move him to a different property. He stated the property he had been offered had similar issues of vandalism. He feared for his life and therefore had to move in with his mother for 8 months in order to have access to his son, before the courts stopped this. He requested a refund of the 8 months rent and compensation for the “suffering” he had experienced.
4. He requested his service charge for the last 7 years be refunded as he had not received the services paid for.
5. He requested compensation for not being able to safely use the carpark for years. He reiterated his request for CCTV to be installed in the carpark.
The landlord noted internally that it had tried to resolve the issues previously but that it would review the complaint at stage 2.
The landlord visited the block on 25 May 2022. The following day (26 May 2022) the landlord contacted the management company and stated as follows:
1. The communal lights on the first floor were not working and the communal lights on the second floor were on all the time.
2. The front door was not secure and access could be gained by “slipping the lock with a key”.
3. The communal door intercom was not functioning correctly.
4. Communal cleaning had not been completed since 9 March 2022 and the communal area was not in a good condition.
5. There was a roof tile “hanging off” and roof tiles were missing.
6. The bike store door was insecure. The door had been blown by wind into the resident’s car. All of the residents had had to move their cars over in the car park, away from the bike store.
7. The management company had not submitted its invoices correctly, which had led to a delay in the landlord paying these. The landlord asked the management company to address the matters urgently.
On 27 May 2022 the management company advised the landlord that the landlord’s payments had been outstanding for 2 years and that the landlord had only provided its new email address 3 weeks prior. It stated that until it received payment from the landlord, the issues at the block would not be resolved as there were no funds to do so.
On 14 June 2022 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request. It reiterated that the resident should contact its insurance company in respect of his request for compensation for damage and loss.
On 11 July 2022 the landlord contacted the management company and asked if it had received payment for the outstanding invoices. The landlord advised that it had visited the block that day and had spoken to the resident. The landlord advised as follows:
1. The communal lights were still constantly on.
2. The front door was still not secure.
3. The door intercom was still faulty which created a safety risk.
4. A deep clean had been completed on the 22 June 2022 however the walls had not been wiped down and the carpets were stained. These needed to be addressed.
On 14 July 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it needed some further information from the management company before it could respond at stage 2. It apologised for the delay.
Internal correspondence from the landlord from 14 July 2022 showed that it queried whether it should offer all resident’s in the block a service charge refund due to the cleaning not having taken place. It also questioned whether the front communal door should be completely replaced and whether it or the management company would be responsible for this.
On 22 July 2022 the management company advised the landlord that repairs had been done to the communal door on 21 July 2022 and it had not needed replacing. The landlord confirmed internally that it had attended the block on 26 July 2022 and the door had been repaired and the communal lights had been fixed.
On 27 July 2022 the management company informed the landlord that its invoices had still not been paid. It stated that it had not requested that the communal lights to be repaired as there were no funds available. It advised that the intercom was a “demised issued” which the landlord would need to take up separately.
On 1 August 2022 the landlord contacted the management company and stated as follows:
1. The lights on the second floor now did not work at all. This created a “serious safety trip hazard” on the stairs.
2. The roof tiles were still loose and there were gaps in the roof tiles.
3. Until a metal plate was fitted over the lock on the communal front door it could still be easily opened.
4. It asked the management company to address the issues.
On 3 August 2022 the management company responded to the landlord and stated that unless the landlord “sorted out” payment of the invoices it could not assist. It stated that until the landlord paid, the management company was not liable for repairs.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and advised that it was still liaising with the management company about the issues.
The landlord contacted the management company on 25 August 2022 and stated as follows:
1. The second floor lights had been fixed, however the contractor had left a hole in the wall. It asked for this to be rectified.
2. It asked when the building would be cleaned to an acceptable standard. It advised that the cleaning sheet had not been updated and the cleaning was not acceptable.
On 24 August 2022 the landlord attended the block following a report of the bike store being broken. It subsequently advised the management company that it was not broken but the bolt needed to be adjusted. It stated that it believed the invoices had been paid. The landlord noted internally that the roof tiles and metal plate to make the communal front door secure had not been actioned.
On 7 September 2022 the management company contacted the landlord and stated that it had been asking for “several months” for the payment to be made for the two years worth of outstanding invoices. As this had not been received this had caused “all services to stop at the block”. It stated that it hoped the landlord’s next email was “advising that payment has been made and not another email asking for works to be done”.
On 8 September 2022 the landlord advised the management company that it had contacted it in July 2022 about the invoices and it had taken the management company almost 3 weeks to respond. The landlord stated that its role was to ensure that its resident were getting the service they were paying for and therefore it would continue to report issues to the management company.
On 10 October 2022 the landlord noted internally that the management company had confirmed receipt of the outstanding payment and had asked its contractors to complete the outstanding works.
On 14 October 2022 the resident reiterated aspects of his complaint to the landlord about the vandalism having cost him around £17,000 and the landlord’s lack of action.
On 17 October 2022 the management company advised the landlord that it had chased the contractor about the loose roof tiles and installing a metal door plate on the communal door. The metal plate was installed to the communal door on 24 October 2022.
On 27 October 2022 the landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. There had been no requests for CCTV from other residents and there were no funds to support this.
2. The communal front door had been repaired on 24 October 2022.
3. It agreed with the stage 1 decision that it could not offer a service charge refund.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 1 November 2022. He stated as follows:
1. There had been “constant” damage to the front communal door and delays in it being repaired.
2. The landlord had not addressed the vandalism and he had lost £17,000 worth of vehicles due to this.
3. The broken bike shed door had damaged his vehicle. He had made a “separate claim” for this but had heard nothing.
4. He had lost over £3000 in earnings for time off for waiting for his door to be fixed.
5. The landlord should have secured the car park and building to make sure it was safe. It did not do so and this led to his son “being taken away”.
6. The landlord had not complied with his subject access request.
7. He requested as follows:
  1. The landlord to pay for damages of approximately £1000 caused to his car by the bike shed door swinging open.
  2. The landlord to pay approximately £17,000 for the vehicles that were written off due to vandalism.
  3. The landlord to pay £150 per day in loss of income for the 7 days he took off work between 2015 and 2020 to wait for contractors to fix his door.

Correspondence following the involvement of this Service

On 7 December 2022 the landlord sent the resident a final warning for arrears of £1230.50. The resident reiterated that he would continue to withhold his service charge payment until all matters had been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord in December 2020 about vandalism to his cars and arson in the building between 2016 and 2018 which the landlord responded to at stage 1. The resident had the opportunity to escalate this as per the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in 2021. The scope of this investigation is therefore limited to the matters raised in the resident’s complaint from Janaury 2022 and the landlord’s responses (which did however refer back to the 2020 complaint). The resident’s historic reports of vandalism instead form part of the background of the resident’s current complaint.
This service does not consider complaints about damages and/or liability of damages, such as the resident’s cars being written off, however it can consider the landlord’s response to such matters.
This Service is not a reactive service and as such is only able to consider complaints which have been considered by the landlord via its internal complaints process. The landlord’s actions in respect of the possible eviction action therefore do not form part of this investigation.
This Service cannot consider the reasonableness of the service charge and the resident’s liability to pay this. The provision of communal services and the landlord’s communication about these can however be considered and these have been included in this report.
It is beyond the remit of the Housing Ombudsman to decide whether there was a direct link between the actions or inactions of the landlord and the resident’s health and mental health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health had been affected by any action or inaction of the landlord.

Response to the resident’s reports of ASB

The evidence seen by this Service showed that the issues of vandalism and firebombs occurred between 2015 and 2018. Despite these issues being historical, the landlord referred back in its complaint response from the previous year (February 2021) where it had offered to pay for the resident to have dashcam to act as a recording device. This was an appropriate form of support for the landlord to have offered. The landlord had considered CCTV for the block however decided against this due to the cost that would be associated with it to other residents. It also noted that the landlord confirmed that there had been no other reports of vandalism from other residents. These considerations were reasonable for the landlord to have considered in respect of its response to the resident’s request for CCTV.
The landlord appropriately advised that matters such as vandalism should be reported to the police and pursued via an insurance claim. From the records of correspondence, the landlord provided signposting to the resident on how to make such a claim. It is noted that the resident asked the landlord to raise such an insurance claim on his behalf. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to this request or provided the resident with support in making an insurance claim. As the resident had made a reasonable request given the distress he had disclosed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have assisted him with making a claim or to have advised that it could not assist with this.
The landlord was limited in the action it could take when responding to the historical issues of vandalism. It demonstrated that it had tried to respond in a resident-focused manner by taking his concerns seriously and offering to pay for him to have a dashcam. It is noted that the resident stated he had provided a number of crime reference numbers to the landlord however the landlord stated these had not been provided. In the absence of evidence that the resident provided such information to the landlord, no finding of failure has been found here in relation to any action the landlord might have then been expected to take. In any case, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s actions were proportionate. It also acted appropriately when it signposted the resident to its insurance team, however it should have responded to the resident’s request for support with making such a claim. As such there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of ASB. To acknowledge the distress this failure had on the resident compensation of £100 has been ordered.

Response to reports of communal repair and maintenance issues

For clarity each issue has been addressed separately below.

The communal door

Although the resident reported that the communal door had been insecure for a number of years, as stated above, this investigation is limited to matters which were considered in the landlord’s complaint response from 2022.
The resident made the landlord aware on 11 Janaury 2022 that the communal front door was insecure. It is noted that an insecure external door is covered by the right to repair scheme and as such the landlord should have actioned this repair within 1 day. It did not do so and it did not inspect the door until 25 May 2022, over 4 months later, when it confirmed that it was insecure. During the inspection the landlord also noted that the communal door intercom was not working. This was also a qualifying repair under the right to repair scheme with a repair timeframe of 7 days.
Although the landlord liaised with the management company about the repairs required, the management company did not carry out the repair to secure the front door until 24 October 2022. It follows therefore that the communal front door was insecure for a period of 9 months. This was not appropriate or in line with the landlord’s repairs policy or right to repair scheme and this significant delay caused distress to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord considered redress for the distress caused by this to the resident or other residents in the block.

Communal lights

The landlord was made aware that the communal lights had not been working correctly in May 2022. Although the landlord liaised with the management company about having these repaired, the communal lights were found to not work at all on the second floor on 1 August 2022. The landlord had acknowledged that this caused a safety issue for residents.
Despite acknowledging the safety risk, the landlord did not take any action to rectify this, other than inform the management company despite knowing that it had declined to carry out any repairs in the block due to a dispute over unpaid invoices. This led to the communal lights not being fixed until 25 August 2022. The communal lights therefore did not work correctly for a period of 3 months and for 3 weeks there were no communal lights in the second floor stairway. This was not appropriate and the landlord did not take appropriate action in light of the safety concern.

Communal cleaning

The landlord was aware in May 2022 that the communal areas of the building had not been cleaned since 9 March 2022. The management company carried out a deep clean in June 2022, however the residents had experienced over 3 months in the block without the communal areas being cleaned. It is noted that this deep clean was not considered by the landlord as being to a satisfactory standard and as of August 2022 the building had not been cleaned to an acceptable standard.
It is not clear when this was rectified, however it is evident that the building had not been cleaned satisfactorily for at least 3 months. The landlord questioned internally whether it should refund resident’s for the lack of this service which they were paying for as part of their service charge. This was an appropriate suggestion however it is concerning to note that the landlord did not take this suggestion further or action a refund for services not provided. Given that the landlord knew this service had not been provided this was not appropriate or reasonable.

Roof tiles

The resident advised this Service that a loose roof tile fell and damaged his car in 2022. The landlord did not provide a copy of this report to this Service, however it is noted that the landlord inspected the block in May 2022 and found the roof tiles to be “hanging off” and some missing.
Despite being aware of this and the potential safety risk this posed, the tiles had not been repaired by the management company by October 2022, some 5 months later. This Service has not been provided with confirmation as to when the roof issues were resolved, however having tiles in such a poor condition for this length of time was not appropriate.

Bike store

The landlord noted from its site visit in May 2022 that the bike store door was insecure and had been blowing in the wind. This Service has not seen any evidence of action taken by the landlord following this. The landlord inspected the block again in August 2022 and noted that the bolt of the bike store needed to be adjusted. Given the potential damage that could be caused by the door swinging, the landlord should have actioned an appropriate repairs in May 2022 and should have a record of the action it had taken to resolve this.
As the landlord was aware that the resident’s allocated car parking space was next to the bike store, the landlord should have considered how the resident was disproportionately impacted by this issue. Given the correspondence it had received from him over the years about the car park, the landlord should have been proactive in ensuring that the store was sufficiently secure.
When considering how the landlord has responded to these repair and maintenance issues this Service has considered the Housing Ombudsman spotlight report on landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents, which was published in March 2022 (during the internal complaints process in this case).
This report acknowledges that landlords can find fulfilling their obligations to be challenging when working with a managing agent especially when the landlord is reliant on the management company to discharge the landlord’s statutory and contractual obligations.
It is clear from the correspondence in this case that the landlord was at times unsure whether the repair issues were its responsibility or the responsibility of the managing agent. This Service expects landlords to be aware of its responsibilities and landlords should also ensure that they and the managing agent have a clear understanding of legal and contractual responsibilities, including what this means in practice.
It is clear in this case that the landlord and the management company were at an impasse over the unpaid invoices. Whilst this was an issue for the landlord and the management company to resolve between themselves it was not appropriate for resident’s to be negatively impacted by this dispute.
Given the nature of the repair issues and the potential security risks posed to the residents by an insecure front door, a lack of stairway lighting, loose roof tiles and an insecure bike shed, the landlord should have taken further action to ensure the issues were addressed in a more timely manner. The unwillingness of the management company to carry out the required repairs did not absolve the landlord of its repair responsibilities which are outlined under the tenancy agreement.
It is noted that the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy contain different repair timeframes. This is however understandable given the landlord’s need to keep its policies up to date with current good practise timeframes. It is also noted that the tenancy agreement does not make mention of a management company and instead states that the landlord is responsible for communal areas and repairs to the building. Although the landlord advised the resident that it was liaising with the management company it did not communicate clearly with the resident that it was relying on the management company to carry out the repairs. This led to frustration for the resident.
The landlord’s property management policy states that where repairs have not been completed satisfactorily or within pre-defined timescales, it will offer compensation. There is no evidence that the landlord considered compensation nor did it provide any explanation for not acting in accordance with this policy. One member of the landlord’s staff raised the issue of refunding the service charge in respect of the communal cleaning. This was a reasonable consideration in the circumstances however there is no evidence that this was considered any further by the landlord. The landlord’s lack of offer of any redress for the resident and other resident’s in the block was not appropriate.
In summary, the landlord failed to ensure repairs were actioned in line with its policy and repair responsibilities. It was aware that the management company was unwilling to carry out the repairs and did not take proactive action to carry out the repairs despite being aware of the safety risks posed to the residents. This amounts to maladministration.
To put this issue right, the landlord has been ordered to identify and pay compensation to the resident for the period from 11 January 2022 to 24 October 2022.
As there were communal repairs and maintenance issues from 11 Janaury 2022 to 24 October 2022, this timeframe has been considered when determining the appropriate level of compensation. As the landlord provided some services but not all those paid for by way of the service charge, compensation equivalent to 50% of the service charge has been ordered to the resident between January 2022 and October 2022 as follows:
1. 11 January 2022 to 24 October 2022 is 40 weeks.
2. 50% of the weekly service charge is £8.60.
3. £8.60 weekly service charge x 40 weeks = £344 compensation.
In addition to the compensation linked to the service charge, additional compensation of £200 has been ordered to the resident. This is to acknowledge that the specific affect he reported in respect of the bike shed issue due to the position of his allocated parking space. In addition the resident experienced the distress and inconvenience of reporting the issues and having to chase the landlord for a resolution.
Paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme provides for the Ombudsman to identify where there is a potential wider impact when investigating the circumstances of an individual complaint. Where the Ombudsman identifies that a member landlord’s policies or practices may give rise to further complaints about that matter, then a review can be ordered to ensure that the landlord puts the issue right for all those affected, not just those that have brought their case to the Ombudsman.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged that the communal service issues affected both the resident and other residents within the same block. It is not evident however that suitable redress was identified for those affected. The redress ordered above has been identified as a proportionate remedy given the detriment experienced by the resident. In addition, a further order, under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme has been outlined below for the landlord to review the case, including its handling of invoicing with managing agents and consideration of whether other residents are entitled to compensation for failures in relation to communal service delivery.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide clear guidance on the timeframes within which it will respond to complaints. It instead states that it will respond as per the Ombudsman’s guidance, (this being 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2). The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 or 2 within these timeframes and so it did not act in accordance with the recommendations of the Code or, as such, in line with its policy.
The resident had submitted the complaint in January 2022 however the landlord delayed in responding at stage 1 until 23 February 2022, over a month later. The landlord did not acknowledge that the stage 1 response was late nor did it offer any apology for this.
The resident subsequently escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 4 March 2022. The landlord subsequently took over 7 months to respond at stage 2. Although it is acknowledged that the landlord updated the resident twice during that time period and stated that it was waiting on the management company, this significant delay was unreasonable. When the landlord did respond at stage 2 it offered no redress for the impact the delay had on the resident and did not consider how it could learn from the delays and complaint handling failing in this case.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that it may offer compensation however the landlord provided no evidence that it had considered compensation in this case which was not appropriate. It is noted that the landlord’s complaints policy states that any such award of compensation would be used to offset against any outstanding arrears. This is not in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code). An order has been made for the complaints policy to be reviewed below.
The landlord’s delays in responding to the resident’s complaints significantly delayed the completion of the internal complaints process and therefore delayed the resident being able to bring his complaint to this Service and reaching an earlier resolution of the issues. Where things go wrong, this Service expects landlords to try to put things right. The landlord did not take action to acknowledge the impact this delay had on the resident or try to put things right. This amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact the landlord’s failings had on the resident compensation of £200 has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s response to the residents’ reports of ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of communal repair and maintenance issues.
In accordance with paragraph 41 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme the landlord’s actions in respect of the resident not having custody of his child are outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (j) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme the landlord’s response to the resident’s subject access request is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated a resident-focused approach by taking the resident’s concerns of vandalism seriously and offering to pay for him to have a dashcam to act as CCTV prior to his current complaint. It appropriately signposted him to both the police and its insurance team, however it should have offered support to the resident in making an insurance claim when he requested that the landlord make such a referral on his behalf.
When the landlord’s working relationship with the managing agent reached an impasse and the management company declined to carry out required repairs, the landlord did not act in a proactive manner to ensure that the repairs for which it was responsible were completed in a reasonable timeframe. This led to the resident living with unnecessary health and safety risks for a number of months. The landlord did not consider actioning the repairs and then recharging the management company as it could have done to discharge its repair obligations. The landlord also did not ensure that the resident was receiving services they had paid for as part of their service charge and did not consider redress for this.
The landlord did not follow its complaints policy and delayed in both its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. The landlord significant delay in its complaints responses unreasonably delayed the resident from being able to bring his case to this Service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this case.
2. Pay the resident £344 compensation to acknowledge the landlord’s failures in maintaining the communal area and actioning communal repairs.
3. In addition, pay the resident compensation as follows:
  1. £100 to acknowledge the impact the service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of ASB had on the resident.
  2. £200 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by having to report the repair issues and having to chase the landlord for a resolution.
  3. £200 to acknowledge the impact the complaint handling failures had on the resident.
4. The payments above must be paid directly to the resident(s) and not offset against any arrears
5. Confirm to this Service and the resident that the loose roof tiles have been repaired and when this was completed or if not to repair them within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme, the landlord must carry out a review of its practice in relation to how it manages its relationship with the managing agent in respect of communal repairs and maintenance issues. The landlord must also carry out a review of its complaints policy, providing clarity of response timescales and the appropriateness of compensation being used to offset arrears.
1. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation and should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
  1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred.
  2. Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure for a period from 11 January 2022 to 24 October 2022.
  3. A review of its processing of invoices from the managing agent.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues and the steps taken to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings.
The landlord should embed the recommendations in the report within its wider transformation programme, to inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after the report has been finalised to check whether changes in practice have been embedded.