We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

MHS Homes Ltd (202334813)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202334813

MHS Homes Ltd

30 September 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about:
      1. Noise nuisance reports.
      2. Cleanliness of the communal area.
      3. Unauthorised access to the block.
      4. Availability of the lifts.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began on 30 December 2021. The property in question is a 2-bed flat in a multi-storey building.
  2. The landlord said that it is aware of the resident’s son having additional needs following receipt of letters from a hospital and their health visitor.
  3. The resident raised noise nuisance reports with the landlord in October 2022 and February 2023. She advised that a neighbouring property was making noise late at nights, which woke and caused distress to her son. The landlord said it would investigate the matter further.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord in June 2023 about people urinating in the lift. She advised her son had slipped into it and she asked that the landlord fix the cameras in the lifts to assist with identification of the culprits.
  5. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 3 July 2023, this acknowledged her concerns of noise nuisance. The landlord said that it would carry out a visit to the property she had reported the noise coming from and asked for evidence of the noise. The landlord also acknowledged her concerns about drug users loitering at the building and said it had ordered a repair to the doors and that it was working with the police to address the issue.
  6. In August 2023, the resident was advised that her tenancy had become assured and she asked about obtaining a move as her current property was not suitable. 
  7. On 7 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord and requested a property transfer. She advised that due to the landlord advising that she could not continue to park in the same place, the property was no longer suitable given her circumstances. The landlord provided information on how she could obtain a parking permit and advised that where she had been parking was a service road and was never available for parking. The landlord advised that it would not be able to offer an immediate move but provided information on how she could obtain a property transfer.
  8. The residents concerns were raised as a stage 1 complaint on 9 November 2023. This complaint included her concerns around the parking situation, the availability of the lifts and the cleanliness and unauthorised access of the communal area.
  9. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 15 November 2023. It partially upheld the complaint, as it acknowledged the issues with unauthorised access to the communal areas. It maintained its position around parking and said it was satisfied with the frequency and standards of the cleaning in the communal area. It added that although it could not guarantee the lifts would not break, they should be repaired as quickly as possible.
  10. The landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response on 6 December 2023. This response referred to the stage 1 complaint from 3 July 2023 about noise nuisance concerns. The landlord said that it was unable to substantiate her concerns around noise from the flat she had reported, it asked for further evidence and offered to visit her to discuss her concerns further.
  11. In April 2024, following contact from the resident, this Service requested a stage 2 response from the landlord. The requested response related to the complaint from November 2023, as the resident advised that these were still ongoing issues and the landlord had not allowed her to progress the complaint.
  12. The landlord provided this stage 2 response in May 2024. Within its response, the landlord partially upheld the complaint and referenced a conversation with the resident. The landlord indicated a willingness to work with the resident to achieve a resolution. It offered to visit her home and discuss the complaint further.  

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around parking

  1. It is evident that the landlord wrote to residents of the building and advised that it would be taking measures to stop people parking on a service road. The resident raised a concern with the landlord about this letter and said that she had been told that parking would be available with the property. She added that if she could no longer park there, the property would no longer be suitable for her and her family’s needs. 
  2. In its response, the landlord reasonably directed the resident to apply for a parking permit for an area nearby that allowed parking with the appropriate permit. It also advised her of other areas in which she could park without a permit.
  3. It is understandable that a potentially inconvenient change to parking arrangements would be disappointing, especially if its proximity was of significant benefit. However, it is clear that the area in question is a service road and it is signposted “no parking – emergency vehicles only”. Therefore, these spaces should never have been considered an area for resident parking and the landlord was merely enforcing longstanding parking rules at the property.
  4. It is evident that the landlord responded to the resident’s request for a property transfer. It advised that the lack of parking would not warrant a transfer within it’s own stock and advised that she would need to seek a move through the local housing register, providing details on how she could do so. Given that the parking issues would not justify a move, it’s response was reasonable and took into account other factors she had raised around vulnerability and medical grounds.
  5. As the landlord was not removing a service that was once available to the resident, it cannot be considered that it has caused any detriment. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns and offered advice to assist her in finding a solution to her requests as to where she could park. Although having to refrain from parking in these areas may cause an inconvenience, there is no evidence that they were allocated for resident parking in the first place. In view of this, the Ombudsman makes a finding of no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around parking.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

  1. Within the two complaints that are being considered as part of this report, there were several issues raised by the resident. These have been addressed individually for clarity and due to the limited provision of evidence by the landlord, despite multiple requests from this Service.

Noise nuisance

  1. The resident raised several noise nuisance reports to the landlord. Emails from October 2022 and February 2023 show repeat concerns around the noise from a neighbouring property. This was detailed as “loud banging, moving furniture, screaming and shouting from a man upstairs” and this took place late at night.
  2. Within its submission to this Service, the landlord explained that it had considered the information provided by the resident and carried out investigations into the noise she reported. It said it had visited the property that the resident reported to be causing the noise but the occupancy and condition of the property did not support her reports about the source of the noise.
  3. When the noise reports were made, the landlord should have recorded these concerns and discussed them further with the resident. It could have then arranged for the resident to provide evidence of the noise. This would usually take the form of written diary sheets or recordings using the noise application that can be obtained for a mobile phone. Based on that evidence, the landlord could have assessed whether the evidence provided demonstrated further investigation was necessary.
  4. When addressing the stage 1 complaint in July 2023, the landlord said that it would attend the property noted within the noise reports as part of its investigation. The landlord did not provide any evidence of why there was such a delay between the reports in February 2023 and it making this offer in July 2023. This is a service failing as it could have made this offer in February 2023, following the previous noise reports.
  5. The landlord carried out the visit to the other property from the resident’s complaint after its complaint response in July 2023. It said that it found no evidence of a cause of the noise that was reported by the resident. Following this visit, the landlord should have made further requests for the resident to collect evidence of the noise she had reported. Instead, there appears to have been an absence of any significant follow up action.
  6. Due to the lack of evidence provided by the landlord, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that it acted in line with its obligations or satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations at the time. This has also prevented the Ombudsman from determining whether the alleged time and trouble spent by the resident was extensive and therefore likely to cause inconvenience.
  7. The omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.

Cleanliness of the communal area

  1. It is evident that the resident raised concerns around the cleanliness of the communal areas prior to her complaint in November 2023. On 30 June 2023, she reported urine in the lift of the building, which her son had slipped into.
  2. In response to this contact, the landlord said “there is little that it was able to do” unless the resident could tell it who had urinated in the lift. Despite the resident’s email showing a clear expression of dissatisfaction around continued issues with the overall cleanliness of the communal area, the landlord did not record this as a complaint. This is a service failing by the landlord as its response was dismissive and showed limited willingness to investigate further.
  3. The resident replied to the landlord’s response and suggested that evidence of the culprits would be available if the cameras in the lift were in working order. It is clear at this stage that the resident was raising a complaint, however, no formal complaint was recorded.
  4. The landlord said that a home visit then took place on 27 July 2023, during which the landlord highlighted its reliance on evidence in order to take enforcement action. It is reasonable that the landlord would seek such evidence before taking action against those responsible. However, the landlord has taken no action to try and prevent further instances of this kind. This is a service failing on its part.
  5. Although it would be unable to take action regarding the incident reported by the resident on 30 June 2023, it could have taken action to reassure her that it took her concerns seriously. This could have been an assurance that it would seek to repair the CCTV cameras in the lifts, or reminder letters being issued to all residents of the building to ensure the cleanliness of the communal areas.
  6. When the resident raised her complaint in November 2023, the landlord’s response was similarly minimal in terms of actions it would, or could, take. It reiterated the problem in identifying who had caused any mess and said that its caretakers attended regularly and aimed to maintain a suitable standard of cleaning. Although enforcement actions to address this issue were not possible at the time, the landlord could have provided details of the cleaning schedule for the building and explained how the resident could request additional cleaning when needed.
  7. The response from the landlord at stage 2 did not address this element of the complaint in any detail and no actions were proposed outside of a discussion with the resident. This is a service failing by the landlord as there was a lack of any real investigation of the resident’s concerns. Had it provided information that the cleaning schedule for the building had been maintained and provided evidence of it monitoring this situation, the resident may have ben reassured.

Unauthorised access to the building

  1. Within the resident’s complaint in November 2023, she referenced unauthorised access to the building by drug users. The landlord’s response was brief, advising that it was aware of these issues and the police had been informed.
  2. The landlord cannot be considered responsible for the unauthorised access to the building. However, it could have done more to reassure the resident, given that this could be extremely daunting given the presence of drug users and the related concerns around cleanliness and safety.
  3. The landlord’s responses at both stages of the complaint were limited with no additional proposals made as to action that could, or would, be taken. The landlord could have written to residents of the building to remind them of their responsibilities in regards to preventing unauthorised access. Although this would not be a guarantee that the same issues would not continue, it would have shown an attempt to minimise the risk.
  4. Within its submission to this Service, the landlord indicated that it recently installed new CCTV cameras that it hoped would assist with preventing such access. This is a positive step but it is unclear why such action could not have been taken sooner given the resident’s complaints.

Availability of the lifts

  1. The resident did not make specific reference to particular failures or periods of unavailability. This would inevitably limit the detail that the landlord could provide. However, its response lacked any detail and offered no form of reassurance on future lift reliability. It said it would look to make repairs as soon as possible when issues were reported.
  2. Although it was limited in the response it could offer, the landlord could have provided detail of the timeframe it works to, or examples of recent repairs made to the lift and the time taken. It could also have highlighted the importance of reporting faults with the lift, as without those reports, the repairs could be unnecessarily delayed.
  3. Within its November 2023 response, the landlord said that lift outages were beyond its control and external contractors complete repairs. This response was unreasonable as it indicated that the landlord was unwilling to take ownership for lift reliability as per its tenancy agreement obligations or consider whether there were any actions it could take to explore why lift outages were occurring.

Summary

  1. It is clear that the landlord failed to record complaints made by the resident, as previous emails showed expressions of dissatisfaction that did not lead to complaints being raised. This is a service failing on the part of the landlord as it did not recognise and record genuine complaints.
  2. When the landlord did provide responses to the resident’s complaints, it did not show an adequate level of investigation. Had it done so, it may have identified the failings in the service it offered and allowed it to understand the resident’s position further. This is reflected in the proposed actions, or lack of them, within the responses it provided within its submission to this Service. Although it may have been limited in the actions it could propose based on the information it held at the time of its response, the landlord could have provided more reassurance that the resident’s concerns were important and being taken seriously. Having considered the landlord’s overall management of the complaints raised by the resident, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration. 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns around parking.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to provide a written apology to the resident for the failings in its handling of her complaints.
  2. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord is ordered to make a compensation payment of £200 to the resident due to the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her complaints.
  3. Within 28 days of this report, the landlord should write to the resident to:
    1. Check if she is still experiencing noise nuisance and, if so, how it will investigate this and provide her with an outcome of these investigations.
    2. Advise her of what specific communal cleaning schedule is in place for her block and what she should do if she finds anti-social behaviour meaning that ad hoc cleaning is needed.
    3. Confirm what action it has taken in the past 12 months to limit unauthorised access to the building and if any further actions are planned.
    4. Advise her what steps it is obliged to take to maintain the reliability of the lift and how quickly it aims to restore the lift when an outage is reported.
  4. The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.