London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201702669)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201702669

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

18 August 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident has complained about:
1. The landlord’s response to the complaint about the incorrectly registered gas meters.
2. The landlord’s response to the complaint about the management of the building.
3. The landlord’s response to the questions about the service charges.
4. The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord in a flat.
The resident has a long history of intermittent contact with the Ombudsman about her concerns with her landlord. Although the resident’s leasehold agreement is with her landlord, the building is actually managed by a separate managing landlord (that also happens to be a housing association and member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme).
The resident received a stage 1 response in February 2019 following a meeting with their landlord and the managing landlord. The complaint focused on the general management of the block, including repairs, cleaning, as well as the communication between the landlord, managing landlord and residents. In June 2020 the landlord stated it had not received a formal complaint since that response, therefore given the contact from the Ombudsman it agreed for its property manager to contact the resident.
The resident disputed that they had not complained. They also raised their concerns with the landlord in July and August 2020, and chased this in September 2020 after no response. The issues raised by the resident were:
1. A communal door repair in 2018, that also resulted in anti-social behaviour issues.
2. In 2017/18 it took the landlord 6 months to provide a car park fob. This issue had reoccurred again ‘recently’ with the landlord delaying providing a fob.
3. That the gas meters were labelled and registered incorrectly resulting in incorrect bills and safety issues as the meters could not be switched off.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 30 September 2020 about the fact the landlord had not kept to its agreement about how to manage the building.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 3 January 2021 to explain:
1. They wanted compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience of the incorrectly registered gas meters.
2. The landlord had not gas safety tested all flats as it had agreed.
3. The landlord had not arranged surveys or meetings with residents and the managing landlord as previously agreed.
4. The landlord had gone against a promise and had added service charges from 2018 to the 2020 account, despite issues in 2018 with a communal door repair.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 27 January 2021 to raise a complaint. The landlord explained on 1 April 2021 that it didn’t have a record of a complaint and acknowledged the complaint with the resident.
The landlord’s stage 1 response (16 April 2021) explained:
1. All pipework supplying a meter is the utility provider’s responsibility; the meter is the responsibility of the utility provider; all pipework from the meter in the property is the responsibility of the leaseholder.
2. The replacement fob was requested on 21 November 2019 and available on 28 November 2019, albeit at an inconvenient estate office. The fob was reported as not working on 6 December 2019 and a replacement available on 9 December 2019. The replacement did not then work. The landlord accepted the resident could not use the car park for 6 weeks up to 13 January 2020. The landlord did state the quality of fobs was outside its control and its property manager did not delay in referring the issue to the managing landlord.
3. Complaints about the level of service charge cannot be investigated through the complaint procedure. However, it noted an explanation had already been sent in March 2021 about a charge from the 2018/19 account appearing on the 2020/21 account.
The resident escalated their complaint on 1 June 2021:
1. They stated they wanted compensation for their incorrectly register gas meter. They had received compensation covering 10 years from the energy provider but had lived there for longer. They felt the landlord was responsible for incorrectly registering the gas meters.
2. They felt the landlord had failed to test all the gas meters for safety after the incorrect registration, and after the resident’s meter could not be switched off during a gas leak in 2018.
3. The landlord or managing landlord had not arranged regular meetings or surveys as agreed after the 2019 complaint.
4. It took 6 months to arrange a new car parking fob in 2017/2018 as the landlord and managing landlord could not agree each parties’ responsibilities. The resident’s car battery had to be replaced as it was not used during this time. This issue had reoccurred in 2019/20.
5. They believed they had been promised no service charges from 2018 would be added to future years due to the level of service at the time. However, they had now been told some of 2018/19 charges had been added to 2020/21. The issues in 2018 related to a door repair and resulting anti-social behaviour issues.
The landlord’s stage 2 response (18 June 2021) explained:
1. The resident bought the property in 2004. The current landlord took responsibility for the building in 2014. It accepted sometimes meters can be incorrectly labelled, but that they are installed and connected by the energy provider. Given the time which had passed it explained it could not investigate further (or offer any compensation).
2. It explained annual gas checks were the responsibility of the leaseholder. It noted therefore any concern about the meter should have been identified by the resident’s own gas checks between 2004 and 2018 when they reported they had been unable to switch off the meter. It also noted if the leaseholder had arranged the recommended annual gas check themselves from when they bought the property the incorrectly labelled meters might have been identified earlier.
3. The landlord confirmed it had been unable to find a date to meet with the managing landlord due to the managing landlord’s staff changes. It stated it would try to continue arranging regular meetings for residents and asked the resident to also chase the managing landlord.
4. The landlord stated it could not investigate a complaint about the communal doors or resulting service charges from 2018 in 2021 due to the time which had passed. It noted it had replied to the issue with an explanation in March 2021.

Assessment

This resident has continued to raise concerns long after the substantive issue occurred. This is understandable when the concerns are in part the general management of their building.
However, disputes are best resolved when the discussion between landlord and tenant (and where required, Ombudsman) is focused on specific events with specific evidence to determine whether a specific service has been provided or not. This is something that the parties can discuss and evidence whether a service was required and provided (or not).
This case is further complicated as the resident continues to use the old landlord’s name when raising the complaint. The new landlord took over the property in 2014. When it did so it did take on the old landlord’s responsibilities, including any commitments the old landlord had made. However, this takeover was a significant period of time ago, and the fact the resident continues to use the old landlord’s name shows how their complaint covers a period that is too long for the landlord, or the Ombudsman, to investigate.

Gas meters and safety

The landlord has given a reasonable response to this complaint.
The landlord is correct that the meters should be installed (including connection to the correct flat) by the energy provider. Furthermore, it was reasonable for the landlord to highlight how this error will have happened in 2004 which is too long ago to be investigated in 2021. It is also important to note the leaseholder’s obligations include arranging their own gas safety checks. Therefore, there was no evidence to support the landlord offering compensation in 2021 for this issue.

Customer service

This is a general concern and does not relate to a specific obligation of the landlord. This is a concern that has arisen out of historic issues with specific services, as opposed to being about a specific service that was not delivered in the timeframe relevant to this case. There is no specific requirement in the leasehold agreement for surveys or regular resident meetings.
However, the landlord did commit to improving how the building is managed in its response to the 2019 complaint. Its final response in 2021 also stated it had accepted that it needed to improve the communication with the managing landlord, and with residents.
The landlord has stated that a different landlord manages the building. It has also shown how it has tried to contact the managing landlord to arrange the requested meetings.
Ultimately the landlord does have specific obligations to the resident. If it is not able to uphold these due to the actions of the managing agent, the landlord would be expected to show how it managed the situation by formally or informally escalating the matter.
However, in this case there is no specific service failure within the timeframe relevant to this case that has been attributed to the communication between the landlord and managing agent. Therefore, given the limited specific impact on the resident and given the landlord’s evidence of trying to communicate with the managing agent, there is no evidence of a failure by the landlord.
The resident highlighted how their request for a new car park fob was handled in 2017/18 as evidence of the issues caused by the landlord and managing landlord. However, this issue was not then raised within 6 months as a formal complaint and so it was reasonable for the landlord’s 2021 complaint to not investigate this further.
The landlord did investigate the delay in 2019/2020 for the second new fob at stage 1 and accepted there had been a 6-week delay. It provided a reasonable explanation in that the new fobs were available within a reasonable period of time, but that 2 consecutive fobs were faulty. While the fobs may be outside the landlord’s control as it stated, it is ultimately responsible for providing access to the resident’s car park. Therefore, this accepted delay in access for the resident should have included an offer of redress for the inconvenience.

Service charges

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme asks that resident’s raise a formal complaint about an issue within 6 months of that issue occurring. The Ombudsman also asks that any complaints are then brought to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the landlord’s final response. This is to ensure any discussions focus on the most pressing concerns, and so that as much information as possible is available.
The resident has raised concerns about the 2018/19 service charges following repairs to the communal doors in 2018. These were not then raised as a formal complaint until 2020/21. Given the time that had passed it was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would not revisit the communal door repair. It also stated it did not have any evidence of an agreement not to manage the service charges as it would normally (ie adding and debit for a year to the following year).
The landlord was correct to explained complaints about the level of service charge are for the First Tier Tribunal, and that the information for any dispute was given on the service charge statement.
Given the time which had passed, the lack of evidence and the reasons for the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would not refund the 2018/19 charge that had been added to the 2020/21 service charge.

Complaint handling

There were unreasonable delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s complaint.
There is some mitigation for the landlord’s delays in that the resident’s complaints were not specific, covered a long period of time, and mixed new concerns with previously addressed issues.
However, the resident clearly requested a formal complaint on 30 September 2020 and did not receive a response until 16 April 2021, following intervention by the Ombudsman. The landlord has not offered any redress for the significant delay.
It is important in cases where the complainant continues to raise older or general complaints to manage the ongoing contact. Therefore, delays in the complaint process can have a compound effect on the handling of future communication and complaints.

Determination (decision)

I can confirm in accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
1. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the incorrectly registered gas meters.
2. There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the management of the building.
3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the questions about the service charges.
4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the formal complaint.

Orders

As a result of the determination above, the landlord is order to, within 4 weeks:
1. Pay the resident £50 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the time taken to provide a working car park fob in January 2021.
2. Pay the resident £200 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the delays in the complaint process.