Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited (202100327)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100327

Metropolitan Housing Trust Limited

05 July 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 is about:
1. The landlord’s response to vandalism and misuse of the resident’s allocated parking bay.
2. The landlord’s handling of repairs and replacement of the resident’s parking bollard.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property, which is a 1 bedroom flat. The resident’s complaint is brought by a representative on their behalf. References throughout this report to the actions of ‘the resident’ include action taken by their representative. The landlord’s records note that the resident has a disability, which is relevant to their parking and access requirements.
The resident has provided correspondence with the landlord, dating back to October 2013, reporting issues with damage to the bollard in their allocated parking bay and misuse of the space by unauthorised vehicles. The resident’s emails highlighted delays in replacing the bollard after it sustained damage in 2013, following which it was damaged again in 2014.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported damage to their parking bollard on 11 October 2018, following which a job was raised to ‘remove damaged concrete then make good’. On 26 October 2018 the resident asked to raise a formal complaint about the delay in completing the repair. A contractor re-concreted the area but the resident reported on 13 November 2018 that the bollard had not been replaced. The contractor returned to refix the bollard on 16 November 2018.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the complaint on 19 November 2018. The resident responded on 20 November 2018 to report that the repair had not been completed to a satisfactory standard, as the internal mechanism was loose, meaning it was not stable. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to follow its complaints process and asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The parking bollard was replaced on 8 January 2019. It is not known whether a stage 2 response was provided.
The above information is provided as context to the complaint brought to this Service, which was first raised with the landlord on 10 January 2020. The above events are outside the scope of the Ombudsman’s investigation, due to the length of time that has passed and as there is no evidence that a final response was provided to the complaint raised in November 2018. However, it is accepted that the history of the difficulties experienced by the resident is relevant to the present complaint and to the appropriateness of the landlord’s response.

Summary of Events

The resident contacted the landlord on 8 January 2020, to report that their parking bollard had been forcibly removed, meaning other cars were able to park in their space. On 10 January 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating that they wished to make a formal complaint about the landlord’s failure to respond to vandalism of parking bollards and misuse of the allocated parking bays by unauthorised vehicles. The resident noted that they were disabled and required access to their parking bay at all times. They asked the landlord to deal with the issue as a matter of urgency.
The resident spoke to the landlord by telephone on 13 January 2020 and emailed the landlord to confirm that someone would be in touch the following day to arrange the installation of a replacement bollard. The resident expressed concern that the landlord had not been proactive in contacting them and no progress had been made with the repair. On 14 January 2020 an email was sent to the repairs team to notify them of the repair.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 January 2020 to confirm that it was not able to add the complaint about the parking bollard to an existing complaint about grounds maintenance, which had already progressed to stage 2 of its complaints process. It confirmed that the complaint had been passed to the customer care team.
The resident discussed the replacement bollard by email with the repairs team on 14 January 2020. The resident noted that the bollards previously installed were not fit for purpose, as they were easily damaged, and suggested that a ‘more secure style’, such as a telescopic bollard, would be appropriate.
The resident telephoned again on 16 January 2020 and a request was sent to the repairs team for an update. The resident followed up again on 17 January 2020. The resident highlighted their disability and the need to resolve the issue urgently. They asked to be kept informed of progress, noting that the landlord’s poor communication had caused unnecessary stress. The landlord responded on 17 January 2020 repeating that this matter could not be dealt with as part of the existing complaint. It asked the customer care team to raise a new stage 1 complaint in relation to the parking bollard.
On the afternoon of 17 January 2020, the resident sent a further email to the landlord to complain about the manner of a member of staff they had spoken to about the parking bollard complaint. The landlord responded stating that the complaint would be forwarded to the appropriate department for investigation as a stage 1 staff complaint and the resident would be contacted within 10-15 working days.
The landlord provided an update on the parking bollard repair on 20 January 2020. It noted that, ‘we are continuing to hold discussions with the repairs team regarding the bollard and will do our utmost to get a replacement of a bollard if warranted. I will endeavour to keep you updated and notify you of the decision that has been agreed on’.
The resident received a response to the stage 1 staff complaint on 4 February 2020, following which this complaint was closed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 February 2020 as the parking bollard had still not been repaired. The resident noted that the repair was first reported on 8 January 2020 and was now outside the timescale for a routine repair. The resident did not feel that the landlord had taken into account their disability. The resident stated that they had also been informed that there was no record of an outstanding complaint about the bollard. The resident was frustrated that the complaints process only allowed for consideration of individual issues and did not address the resident’s dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service as a whole. The resident stated that dealing with the landlord had been ‘exhausting’, as they had been required to repeat their concerns many times with ‘no senior manager taking accountability’.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had arranged for the supply and installation of a replacement parking bollard. The landlord stated that it would call the resident on Monday to provide an update. The landlord acknowledged that the parking spaces were being misused by a number of people, and committed to , ‘look to put some measures in place to resolve [sic] such as better notices, planned inspections etc.’. The landlord apologised for the delays in handling and resolving the resident’s complaints. It stated that it was looking to address issues within its customer care team to improve its service.
The landlord sent a further email apologising that the stage 1 complaint about the parking bollard had not been actioned and explaining that the staff complaint had been closed. The resident replied that the complaint about the member of staff and the landlord’s handling of the repair was, ‘part of the same complaint as it directly relates to the efforts made to chase up the outstanding bollard replacement’. The resident stated that it was totally unacceptable that no progress had been made on the repair or complaint, despite this being raised over 6 weeks ago.
The landlord logged a formal complaint by the resident on 2 March 2020. The landlord’s repairs team and customer care team liaised with the resident by email on 2 and 3 March 2020 to discuss the repair and arrange a suitable date for replacement.
On 3 March 2020 the landlord emailed the resident to explain that the staff complaint, the complaint about the bollard repair and the complaint about grounds maintenance must all be treated as separate complaints as they were separate issues that occurred at different times. The landlord provided details of the member of staff dealing with the bollard repair complaint. The landlord informed the resident that this complaint would be dealt with under its new, 2 stage complaints process. The complaint was acknowledged on 6 March 2020, the landlord stated that it expected to be in touch within the next 10 working days.
On 11 March 2020 the resident reported that an unauthorised vehicle was parked in their parking bay and provided a photograph. The parking bollard was successfully replaced on 12 March 2020.
The resident contacted this Service in March 2020 about delays in the landlord completing repairs to the parking bollard, among other issues. On 16 March 2020, the resident telephoned this Service and reported that the parking bollard had been replaced. As the resident had complained about several issues, which had been raised as separate complaints, they were unclear as to whether their complaints had completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The parking bollard sustained further damage shortly after its repair. This was reported to the landlord on 18 March 2020. The resident repeated that the bollards were not fit for purpose, as they were easily damaged by force. The landlord responded on 19 March 2020, stating that it would discuss this with the repairs team. It noted that its services may be impacted by the restrictions imposed as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic. The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 27 March 2020, stating that currently only essential repairs were being completed where there was a ‘risk to life or property’. The landlord noted that this was a priority case and it was working to plan the repair.
Internal emails between the repairs and complaints Teams on 27 and 30 March 2020 noted that, ‘it is the second time someone has ripped it off as a result others are parking in [the resident’s] space’. The complaints team noted the resident’s health condition and asked about more suitable permanent options. The Repairs Officer responded asking whether the damage was done deliberately and stating, ‘unfortunately there is no CCTV, and the ASB is low level’. They advised on replacement options that would not be too heavy for the resident to operate.
The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 2 April 2020, stating that it had been exploring options for a more suitable parking bollard. The landlord also noted that it was looking into whether CCTV could be installed to help identify those responsible for the recurrent vandalism. It also suggested painting on disabled parking signage and adding notices warning of clamping to act as a deterrent.
The resident emailed requesting an update on the parking bollard repair on 14 May 2020. The resident acknowledged the impact of the pandemic on the landlord’s services but highlighted that this was a priority repair for a vulnerable tenant. The resident noted, ‘while this complaint remains unresolved we are in no position to close it’. The resident indicated that the landlord’s complaints process was protracted and difficult to navigate.
On 21 May 2020, the landlord obtained a quote from its contractor to mark out the parking bays in solid white lines and to install ‘the strongest bollard suitable for parking bag’ (sic). The landlord chased an update on the quote on 26 May 2020.
The landlord’s records show that it provided a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint about the parking bollard on 21 May 2020, although a copy dated 1 May 2020 has been provided to this Service. Information provided by the resident indicates that they received this response by email on 4 June 2020.
In the stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it had assured the resident that the parking bollard would be replaced in January 2020. It also accepted that other people had been able to access the parking bay during the period where the bollard was broken, causing stress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord stated that during this period, the Customer Care Officer had liaised directly with the Regional Repairs Manager to ‘ensure the repair was being actioned’. It had also kept the resident informed of the progress in arranging the repair with its contractors. The response made no mention of the further damage to the bollard that had occurred following its replacement on 12 March 2020. The landlord offered the resident £30 compensation for ‘time and trouble’ and £30 compensation in recognition of ‘service failure’.
The customer care team contacted the repairs team again on 30 May 2020, noting that the resident was frustrated that no action was being taken in relation to the alleged vandalism. The email confirmed that, ‘the bollard has been forced down and now is completely ripped off’, stressing that they needed to find a ‘tamper proof’ solution. The repairs team noted that the vandalism needed to be addressed if this was the cause, to avoid continual, costly replacement of the bollard. The customer care team stated that the resident ‘has provided pictures of others parked in their space and is not aware that any action has been taken to address this’. The complaints team also acknowledged the previous delays in completing the repair between January and March 2020.
The landlord’s internal emails demonstrate that it discussed a replacement bollard, disabled parking signs, signage to warn of clamping or issuing a permit for the space to allow for parking enforcement. The repairs team stated that it would explore whether there was any existing parking enforcement for the estate and noted that it had already made enquiries about painting a disabled bay. The repairs team noted on 31 May 2020 that it would be in a position to arrange the repair once Coronavirus restrictions had eased. The contractor provided a quote for the replacement bollard on 31 May 2020 and the job order was approved internally by the landlord on 11 June 2020.
The resident responded to the stage 1 complaint response by email on 8 June 2020. They noted that the complaint had first been raised in January 2020 and that despite the landlord installing a replacement bollard in March, this had been vandalised meaning that the repair was not yet permanently resolved. The resident stated that it was unacceptable that the landlord was responding to the complaint at stage 1, as they had understood that it had been escalated and believed it ought to have reached stage 3 by now. The resident rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation as a permanent repair remained outstanding.
On 30 June 2020 the resident’s previous contact in the landlord’s complaints team emailed to apologise for the failure to respond to their previous communications, noting that they had since moved onto a new role. The member of staff committed to follow-up on the repair with the repairs team. The resident responded to say that they were disappointed that they had not been kept updated and that no progress had been made with the repair.
Following the installation of a new bollard on 1 July 2020, the resident emailed the landlord on 2 July 2020 to report that it was unsuitable for their use, as it was too heavy to operate. The resident also noted that it needed to be lifted out and stored when the bay was in use, which could lead to theft or further vandalism, as it was not secured. The resident complained that the landlord had not contacted them before installing the barrier to confirm its suitability.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 7 July 2020 to express their disappointment with how the landlord had handled their complaints, and with an unsuitable barrier being installed without prior consultation after a ‘long delay’. The resident felt that the landlord had failed to take into account their needs as a disabled resident, despite referencing this in its complaint response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 July 2020, apologising for the delay in resolving the issue and explaining that this was not the specification of barrier that the contractor was asked to install. The landlord carried out an inspection and liaised with its contractor, in consultation with the resident, to obtain a quote and arrange the installation of a ‘more robust bollard’ that met the resident’s needs. A more suitable bollard was installed on 28 July 2020. The Repairs Officer recorded a demonstration video of the operation of the new bollard and provided this to the resident, who fed back their appreciation and approval in an email on 29 July 2020.
The resident subsequently experienced difficulties unlocking the parking bollard and reported this to the landlord. The landlord emailed its parking contractor on 18 October 2020 to report that the resident’s key would not turn, despite following the contractor’s maintenance advice provided the previous week. The landlord requested that someone attend urgently to change or repair the lock. The landlord noted the resident’s poor health and the necessity to complete the repair as soon as possible.
The landlord has provided correspondence with the resident in November 2020. The resident messaged the landlord’s Repairs Officer directly on 4 November 2020, requesting an update on the parking bollard. They chased again on 17 November 2020, noting that it had been 3 weeks since They had been told that a replacement had been ordered. The Repairs Officer replied stating that the landlord’s contractor was chasing the manufacturer. He noted that due to the delays they would seek another provider to arrange a replacement bollard if the manufacturer could not provide a solution within 5 days. On 17 November 2020 the landlord emailed its contractor chasing the repair of the malfunctioning bollard, noting that the resident’s health was deteriorating and that a formal complaint had been made about the delays. The landlord requested that the repair be completed within the next 7 days.
On 20 November 2020 the operative informed the resident that the bollard was likely to be fitted the following week. On 23 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor indicated that it would attend sometime in the week commencing 30 November 2020. The landlord also emailed an alternative contractor on 23 November 2020 to obtain a quote should the existing contractor fail to undertake the repair within a reasonable time. The landlord requested a response ‘as a matter of urgency’. The landlord’s existing contractor confirmed on 23 November 2020 that only the lock required replacement.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord’s emails confirm that it had arranged for the resident to swap allocated parking bays with a relative who also lives in the block, and whose parking space was in the underground car park. The landlord also noted that it would send a letter to all residents reminding them of the number of their allocated bay, and if it found a vehicle parked in the resident’s current parking bay, it would be issued with a ‘Notice instructing removal’. The landlord stated that in general, as there was no parking enforcement, it would be for residents to ‘monitor and manage the parking of their bay’. On 25 November 2020 the Repairs Officer messaged the resident to state that a ‘notice’ had been served on a car parked in their parking space, warning that it would be removed.
The complaint was re-opened on 2 December 2020 following contact from this Service, and the landlord was asked to provide a stage 2 response by 6 January 2021. On 3 December 2020 the Repairs Officer reported that contractors were on site to repair the bollard.
The landlord has provided a copy of a letter sent to residents on 3 February 2021. The letter notified residents that it had witnessed unauthorised vehicles parking in residents’ bays, and reminded residents of the need to park in their own allocated bay only. The letter confirmed the number of the resident’s bay and stated that there were no visitor bays. It advised that residents’ visitors would need to seek alternative parking away from the estate.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 8 February 2021 referred to a complaint received on 27 February 2020 in relation to the replacement of the resident’s parking bollard. The landlord acknowledged that it has failed to log a complaint at the resident’s request on 17 January 2020, ‘due to an administrative error’. It noted that following further contact from the resident in February 2020, the bollard had been replaced on 12 March 2020. The complaint was then closed and the resident awarded £60 compensation.
The landlord noted that the bollard had been ‘forcibly removed’ again shortly after the replacement was installed and so it arranged to provide a tamper-proof alternative. The resident then contacted the landlord to inform it that the new bollard was unsuitable, as they could not operate it unassisted, following which, a bollard of a different design was ordered and installed on 25 July 2020, which the resident deemed satisfactory.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had continued to experience issues with unauthorised vehicles parking in their bay. The landlord confirmed that its Housing Team was treating this as an Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) matter, and that it had written to the resident believed to be parking in the resident’s bay. It had also moved the resident’s bay to a location in the fob-accessed underground parking area, however, it acknowledged that this bay had since been occupied by an unauthorised vehicle undergoing repairs. The repairs officer arranged for this vehicle to be towed away in December 2020, and the stage 2 response confirmed that the landlord was not aware of any further issues with the resident accessing their parking bay.
The landlord upheld the complaint due to the length of time it took to resolve the issue, noting that in part the delay was caused by restrictions imposed as a result of the pandemic. The landlord also apologised for the delay in raising the initial complaint and the delay in providing a stage 2 response following the escalation request from this Service. It offered the resident £300 compensation; £150 in respect of the delays and £150 for poor complaints handling.
The resident has reported to this Service that the solutions offered by the landlord have not satisfactorily resolved the issue, noting that unauthorised vehicles continue to park in both bays. The resident has sent messages to the landlord’s Repairs Officer, providing information about the individuals believed to be responsible. The resident is currently staying away from home, as they are not confident that a return to the property would be, ‘without stress or anxiety due to the continuation of ASB in the estate of other parking in [their] bay and the bay belonging to [their] mother’.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has provided a copy of its ASB Policy, which contains examples of behaviour that would be treated as ASB. This includes ‘vandalism and damage to property’. ASB is defined in accordance with the definition in the Anti-Social Behaviour Crime and Policing Act 2014 and includes, ‘conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises.’
The landlord has also provided a copy of its Neighbourhood Management Policy, which states that its responsibilities include, keeping ‘communal and external areas in a good state of repair … and fit for use by residents and visitors’. It also commits to, ‘listening and acting on concerns raised by residents with regard to their neighbourhood and having a clear, simple and accessible approach to complaints to ensure they are resolved promptly’. ‘Communal areas’ and ‘communal grounds’ are stated to include parking spaces and bays. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the policy states that the landlord will regularly inspect communal areas and communal grounds and where recurrent problems arise will, ‘work in partnership with the Local Authorities, Police and other agencies to resolve the problem’.
The landlord’s document ‘Repairs – A guide for tenants’ sets out the landlord’s responsibilities and service standards in relation to repairs. The guide defines a ‘routine repair’ as one that ‘can be deferred without serious discomfort, inconvenience or nuisance to the resident’. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The landlord has provided a copy of its current Complaints Policy, which was updated in February 2021. The landlord has not provided a copy of the policy in use at the time of the resident’s complaint. The current policy states that the landlord will first attempt local resolution of a complaint and if this is not possible, a formal complaint will be logged and acknowledged within 5 working days. The landlord will aim to provide a response within 10 working days, failing which it will keep the resident updated. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response, they can request escalation to stage 2. The landlord will then investigate and provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord has provided a copy of its Compensation Policy to illustrate how it reached the sum of £300 compensation. The Compensation Policy states that awards of compensation for service failure will be appropriate where it failed to complete repairs when it said it would. A ‘medium level’ of service failure will be reflected with an award of £51+ and a ‘high level’ of service failure will result in a payment of £151+. Payments for ‘time and trouble’ will be appropriate where a customer has expended unnecessary effort communicating with the landlord and unnecessary stress and inconvenience has been caused to them. Assessments of compensation for time and trouble should take into account a resident’s individual circumstances, such as whether they have a vulnerability or disability.

Response to vandalism and misuse of parking bay

On a number of occasions since 2013 the resident has complained about damage to the bollard protecting their parking bay and misuse of the bay by unauthorised vehicles. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that all residents are allocated one parking bay per household and that there are no visitors spaces at the estate. The landlord has commented that it has previously consulted with residents about introducing parking enforcement but it did not receive an adequate response.
The resident’s formal complaint raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repeated damage to their parking bollard, which they believed was due to vandalism. The resident was frustrated that no action was being taken to deter people from parking in their space or to prevent further damage from occurring. Following the report of damage to the bollard in January 2020, 2 further bollards were damaged shortly after replacement, firstly in March when the bollard was damaged in a matter of days and again in October 2020 after the repair July 2020.
The landlord’s ASB policy includes ‘vandalism and damage to property’ in the definition of ASB, and so it would have been appropriate for it to investigate the resident’s concerns as possible ASB when this was raised in January 2020. In addition, the landlord’s Neighbourhood Management Policy states that it will listen to and act on residents’ concerns and that where recurrent problems arise it will work in partnership with other agencies to try to achieve a solution. There is no evidence that the landlord took action either prior to or as a result of the formal complaint to investigate the cause of the damage, or that it considered measures to deter vandalism. In its email of 28 February 2020 the landlord stated that it would look to put in place measures to resolve the recurring issue, such as, ‘better notices, planned inspections’, however there is no evidence that this was followed-up at that time.
Between March and May 2020, the landlord’s internal emails record that it did discuss installing CCTV, adding signage or using notices warning of clamping, however, there is no evidence to indicate that any of these suggestions were followed-up and there is no record as to the landlord’s decision.
Whilst the landlord can use its discretion to determine a ‘reasonable and proportionate’ approach to tackling ASB, its actions should still be recorded and the resident kept updated. If the landlord decides it is unable to investigate or to take further action, the resident should be informed of this. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord has failed to evidence that it adequately investigated or responded to the resident’s concerns about suspected vandalism, or to manage their expectations about the action it could take. It was not until the stage 2 response that the landlord confirmed that it was treating the misuse of the resident’s parking bay as ASB, at which time it wrote to residents to remind them of the need to park only within their own bays.
In response to the complaint, the landlord was overly focussed on resolving the bollard repair each time damage was reported. The resident had clearly highlighted their concerns about the repeated vandalism and this was not addressed by the landlord in line with the requirements of its policies. In addition, the landlord failed to take into account the impact of repeated vandalism on the resident as a disabled tenant. The requirement for unimpeded access to the parking space was significantly greater due to the resident’s personal needs and the landlord should have taken this into account when considering suitable preventative measures. There was therefore maladministration by the landlord in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

Handling of repairs

The landlord has accepted that there were delays in progressing the repair between 8 January 2020 and 12 March 2020. It offered a total of £60 compensation at stage 1 in recognition of service failure and the time and trouble taken to pursue the issue. At stage 2, the landlord increased the compensation offered to £150 in respect of ‘time and trouble’, acknowledging the length of time taken to find a solution.
The Ombudsman considers that the initial offer of £60 compensation did not adequately reflect the service failure and the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a disabled tenant, however the landlord did recognise this at stage 2 and the offer was increased.
The landlord has cited the pandemic as a reason for delays in installing a replacement bollard following further vandalism in March 2020. Whilst there is no doubt that the landlord’s services were impacted by the restrictions in place at that time, the resident was informed that the repair was being treated as a ‘priority repair’ due to their disability.
Although the landlord’s complaints team clearly made efforts to progress the repair with the repairs team, the resident was not informed when their primary contact moved on to another role and was again forced to chase for an update. Whilst it may not have been possible to complete the repair any sooner, it was not reasonable for the landlord to fail to keep the resident informed. Had the landlord been more proactive in its communication, this would have reduced the frustration experienced by the resident. There were further delays due to the landlord’s failure to consult with the resident about the type of bollard to be installed on 1 July 2020, also evidencing poor communication.
Following further problems with the bollard’s lock that were reported in October 2020, it took until 3 December 2020 for the landlord’s contractor to attend to carry out a repair. This was not mentioned in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. The landlord did work proactively to chase its contractor and to investigate alternative means of progressing the repair and providing suitable alternative parking. However, the repair was not completed within the landlord’s 28 day target timeframe for a routine repair and given the resident’s needs and the history of delays, the Ombudsman considers that this repair was not completed within a reasonable timeframe.
Overall it is clear from the evidence that the resident has had an extremely difficult experience repeatedly chasing repairs due to recurring issues. This has led to a considerable amount of inconvenience, stress and anxiety. The long delays in achieving a permanent solution have in part been due to the restrictions imposed as a result of the pandemic, repeated damage to the parking bollards once installed, and delays on the part of the landlord’s contractor. Although the landlord has accepted responsibility for the unreasonable delay between January and March 2020, the Ombudsman considers that there was additional service failure due to the further delays in progressing a repair between October and December 2020. The landlord also failed to communicate effectively and to assess the suitability of the bollard for the resident’s needs prior to installation in July 2020. An increased award of compensation is therefore appropriate to reflect a higher level of service failure, in accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Policy.

Complaints Handling

A formal complaint was first made to the landlord on 10 January 2020 but was not logged as a formal complaint until 2 March 2020, despite the landlord’s assurances that it had been passed to the customer care team to investigate. The resident did not receive a complaint acknowledgment, as required under the landlord’s complaints policy, until 6 March 2020. This was an unacceptable delay. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response to the formal complaint until 21 May 2020, although it is acknowledged that the landlord’s services were likely impacted by the Coronavirus pandemic during this period.
It was reasonable for the landlord to insist that the parking bollard complaint could not be dealt with as part of the grounds maintenance complaint, as this related to separate issues and was currently at stage 3 of the landlord’s internal complaints process. A landlord must be given the opportunity to resolve a complaint locally and at the earliest possible stage before it is progressed through their complaints process and considered at a more senior level of the organisation. It is noted, however, that the stage 1 complaint response made reference to the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance and the action the landlord was taking. This was particularly unhelpful, as the resident had been repeatedly informed that their complaints could not be combined and must be responded to separately.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to deal with the staff complaint as part of the general complaint about its handling of repairs to the parking bollard. Its decision to treat the complaints separately meant that it failed to log and respond to the substantive issue within a reasonable time. This increased the resident’s frustration and the time and trouble they had to expend pursuing complaint. It also diminished their faith in the complaints process.
When the resident indicated their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response on 8 June 2020, there is no evidence to suggest that the complaint was escalated. The resident noted that they were not satisfied with the repair or the landlord’s complaints handling and rejected the offer of £60 compensation made in the stage 1 response. The landlord therefore failed to escalate the complaint at this time, as required by its complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged that it ‘took longer than usual’ to raise the resident’s formal complaint and to provide a response. It offered £150 compensation for poor complaints handling at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. This level of compensation reflects a ‘medium level’ of service failure, in accordance with the landlord’s Compensation Policy.
The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling and that the landlord’s final offer of compensation did not adequately reflect the level of service failure or the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The final response did not refer to or apologise for the failure to escalate the complaint in June 2020, only to the general delay in providing a final response. The landlord was not specific about what went wrong during the complaints process and it did not describe the lessons learnt or the steps it was taking to ensure similar issues did not occur in the future. It is also noted that the final response stated the complaint had been closed in March 2020 following the repair. The landlord is reminded that once a repair is completed, it is still required to provide a response to the complaint. In light of these additional failings, the Ombudsman makes an Order that the landlord pay the resident a further £50 compensation, in addition to the £150 offered at the final stage of its complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about vandalism and misuse of their allocated parking bay.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s parking bollard.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the vandalism of their parking bollard and misuse of their parking bay. The landlord has failed to evidence that it conducted an adequate investigation into the resident’s concerns and having since accepted that the repeated vandalism constitutes ASB, it has failed to consider and implement adequate measures to address this, taking into account the resident’s disability.
There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs beyond that identified by the landlord during its internal complaints process. This was due to unreasonable delays in providing a suitable, permanent replacement and its failure to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair.
There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint as it failed to identify areas where its processes were not followed, to evidence how it had learnt from the complaint and to make an appropriate offer of compensation.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £200 in recognition of its failure to adequately investigate and respond to the resident’s concerns about vandalism and misuse of their parking space.
2. Pay the resident £50, in addition to the compensation already offered at stage 2 of the landlord’s internal complaints process, in recognition of the additional failings identified in relation to repairs to the resident’s parking bollard.
3. Pay the resident £50, in addition to the compensation already offered at stage 2, in recognition of the additional failings identified in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.
4. Conduct an investigation into the recurrent damage to parking bollards and misuse of the allocated parking spaces at the estate and report back to the resident and to this Service on the measures the landlord intends to take to prevent further misuse and to deter vandalism.
5. Review its complaints handling processes and, if necessary, provide additional training to staff, to ensure that a system is in place for logging, acknowledging and responding to complaints within the timescales set out in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.