Newlon Housing Trust (202210017)

Back to Top

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210017

Newlon Housing Trust

29 August 2024 

Investigation report amended at review.

 

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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
    1. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Outstanding communal repairs.
    3. Issues with the bin and bicycle store.
    4. The Ombudsman also considered the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to his dissatisfaction with the service charge.

Background

  1. The resident has lived in the flat since 2015 when the block was newly built. He started as a shared owner and then fully purchased the flat, becoming a leaseholder.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 August 2021 to raise a complaint about:
    1. Prostitutes, rough sleepers, and drug users using the bin/bicycle store areas.
    2. The outstanding repairs, namely the communal areas not being secure including residents of neighbouring block of flats accessing his block, and the intercom not working.
    3. The bin/bicycle store areas were poorly designed and not fit for purpose.
    4. The resident also mentioned the increase and fairness of the service charges.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint and raised works orders to address the repairs, it also confirmed the door entry was due for upgrade shortly. The landlord and the resident met on at least 2 occasions to identify issues and try to find a resolution.
  4. The resident requested escalation of his complaint to stage 2 on 11 October 2022 following the Ombudsman’s involvement. Despite having feedback on issues, the resident had not had acknowledgement or a response to his escalation request, the Ombudsman asked the landlord to respond by 12 December 2022. The landlord responded on 16 December 2022. It upheld its stage 1 response but acknowledged it had not given information relating to service charges, for which it offered the resident £25 compensation.
  5. The resident is still dissatisfied and as a resolution he would like compensation, a refund of certain service charges, for the landlord to take responsibility for the failings the resident identifies and to learn from them. The resident would also like the landlord to resolve issues which he reports without having to go through the complaints process or to external parties.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. Put things right.
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

Scope of the investigation.

  1. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident raised previous complaints or reports to the landlord regarding the issues considered in this determination. This investigation will acknowledge these but will not base the determination on this information. The investigation will focus on matters from 19 August 2021 onwards. This is in line with paragraphs 42a and b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure or were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42d of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of service charge, or the amount of the service charge increase. This investigation will not consider the level or reasonableness of the resident’s service charges. However, the Ombudsman may investigate the landlord’s handling of resident’s service charge queries.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

  1. The landlord’s ASB policy defines what type of behaviour it constitutes as antisocial. Amongst others, this includes prostitution, the misuse of communal areas, and drug taking.
  2. The policy offers a different service depending on whether the perpetrators are known or unknown. If the perpetrators are unknown the landlord will resolve any problems left by their presence, but there is not the expectation of an investigation which there would be if the perpetrators are known.
  3. The landlord classified the resident’s ASB reports as the perpetrators being unknown. The landlord, in accordance with its policy, advised the resident to go to the police and resolved the problems created by the perpetrators.
  4. As the resident would not reasonably be expected to identify the perpetrators it could be understandable and within its policy for the landlord to take this course of action, however there is CCTV in the block. The Ombudsman does not know whether the CCTV would have captured images of the perpetrators, but the landlord has not evidenced it took any steps to view the footage to attempt to do this. It did not liaise with partner agencies until over a year later when it asked the police to do patrols in the area.
  5. The landlord should have taken steps to see whether it had the ability to identify the perpetrators, to try to prevent a recurrence.
  6. The repeated serious allegations made to the landlord meant it should be looking at what resolutions it could offer rather than just removing the issues the perpetrators left behind.
  7. While it cannot form part of this determination as this happened following the landlord’s final resolution, it is worth noting bullets were found in the bin/bicycle store area. This is an escalation of the problems the resident has been reporting to the landlord.
  8. The landlord did not take a holistic approach or change its response when it was evident these were repeated issues. It did not use the tools available to investigate or liaise with partner agencies to try to prevent a recurrence of the issues for the residents. This lack of action meant the resident has lost confidence in the landlord and amounts to a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.

  1. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord has an obligation to keep the communal areas, structure, and exterior of the property in good repair. This is confirmed in the landlord’s repairs policy where it states it will “take reasonable care to keep common entrances, hall, stairways, lifts, passageways, rubbish chutes and any other common parts, including the electric lighting, in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant, other occupiers and visitors to the premises”.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines it will complete emergency communal repairs, within 24 hours. These could be repairs such as securing a gate or door (other than a main door) when health and safety, security concerns are raised or there are ASB reports, repairing entry phones when people cannot access the building, where people can access it will assess within 1 working day and aim to fix within 3. All other repairs are classified as non-emergency and completed within 20 working days.
  3. In the resident’s complaint dated August 2021, he reported the communal areas not being secure including residents of a neighbouring block accessing his block, and the intercom not working. The Ombudsman notes we have seen evidence from 2017 of the intercom problem being raised to the landlord, however for the purposes of this report we are using the complaint from 2021.
  4. The Ombudsman notes the landlord has not provided repair or inspection logs for the block, so we are not able to ascertain what has been raised and the timeliness of the completed repairs other than relying on emails provided by the landlord.
  5. The landlord advised the resident the door entry system was due for an upgrade in its stage 1 response dated September 2021. To stop the neighbours gaining access to the resident’s block the landlord reprogrammed their fobs in December 2021. The resident reported his fobs were not working on 10 January 2022 and the landlord upgraded the intercom on 12 January 2022. In communication with the resident, the landlord said it would continue to monitor whether the neighbours had access to the resident’s block. Later that month the resident reported to the landlord his neighbours were continuing to use his block.
  6. On 7 February 2022, the landlord confirmed the door entry system would be changed in 3 weeks following it failing. The landlord contacted the resident to confirm the contractor had replaced the door entry system and set the reprogramme of the fobs correctly in March 2022. The resident reported that the intercom had wires sticking out of it, to which the landlord said it would ask the contractor to revisit.
  7. In August 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that he did not think the new intercom was set up correctly. In communication seen by the Ombudsman the contractor and the landlord managed to ascertain the problem and fixed this in November 2022.
  8. Despite the landlord stating in January 2022, it would continue to monitor the intercom, it was the resident who highlighted the failure of the fixes and who was integral to the issue being resolved. Landlords are entitled to rely on the opinions of qualified staff or contractors concerning whether works have been completed. Where residents are repeatedly reporting attempted resolutions have not worked the landlord needs to take responsibility to satisfy itself an issue is resolved rather than relying on a resident to investigate and report back. The landlord has responsibility to manage the scheme.
  9. While the Ombudsman appreciates the intercom issue was not straightforward, the landlord did not adhere to its repairs policy, taking more than a year longer that its own deadlines to achieve a resolution.
  10. In his complaint of August 2021, the resident referred to an entry point which was being easily opened with a stick by non-residents, this was resolved in October 2022 by the landlord covering the button. As there were ASB, health and safety and security concerns this should have been dealt with as an emergency repair, meaning the landlord failed to meet its own deadlines to resolve the issue, exposing the resident and his neighbours to the problems for over a year longer.
  11. Prior to issuing the final resolution letter in December 2022 the landlord confirmed the bin store door was completely off. The email exchange shows the landlord queried whether it could reinforce the door to prevent this happening again. The resident reported to the landlord in May 2023 the doors had been broken again. The landlord should be taking a holistic approach to resolving the repeated nature of these doors being damaged, the landlord needs to explore alternatives to resolve the problems.
  12. The repairs took an unreasonable length of time to resolve. The resident had to chase and had to contact the landlord to highlight and seek the correction of mistakes. There was an unreasonable level of involvement on the resident’s behalf to resolve the matter. The Ombudsman has seen the landlord recognised the resident’s tireless work to try to resolve the intercom issue, which then raises the question why it did not think it appropriate to offer any compensation for this failure. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs requestsamountsto a finding of maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the issues with the bin / bicycle store areas.

  1. On the landlord’s website, it lists its values. Two of these values are being safe and trusted by providing, developing, and maintaining safe homes, listening to residents, and acting on their safety concerns. It also takes responsibility, ownership, and puts things right.
  2. The occupancy agreement gives the landlord the right to add to, diminish, modify, or alter any service if it believes it is reasonably necessary or desirable for good estate management or for the benefit of residents.
  3. As previously mentioned, the Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s repairs or inspection logs, so we are unable to ascertain how many repairs were carried out and the completion dates.
  4. The landlord acknowledges that non-residents have used the bin/bicycle store areas. The Ombudsman has seen evidence in 2017 a resident of the block was so frustrated by non-residents using the areas that he nailed the door shut. It is acknowledged this issue has been going on for some years, but this determination focuses on August 2021 onwards.
  5. The landlord’s values state it will listen to and act on residents’ safety concerns and its repairs policy says it would take reasonable care to keep this in reasonable repair and fit for use by the resident. The resident repeatedly reported to the landlord he did not use the bicycle store area as it is not fit for purpose and both it and the bin store are poorly designed. The resident does not want the bicycle store or the continued obligation to pay for its upkeep.
  6. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord adhered to its values by listening to and acting on the resident’s safety concerns. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord considered the resident’s request for the removal of the bicycle store or provided reasons for it not being able to do so. It is acknowledged the landlord may have obligations for certain provisions, but the occupancy agreement allows the landlord to make changes and its values places a responsibility on the landlord to consider this. Therefore, this will form part of the order.

The landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to his dissatisfaction with the service charge.

  1. By way of background, the resident raised a complaint regarding the increase and unfairness of the service charge on 19 August 2021. The landlord’s agent within the stage one response dated 17 September 2021 outlined that they would consult with the Head of service charges to discuss the issues and they would provide an update to the resident. Following this, the landlord provided a stage two response dated 19 December 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident because it failed provide further advice following the stage one response. The landlord then directed the resident to the service charge team and explained that any issues regarding service charge would be dealt with by the relevant team. The landlord further explained that a response to any issues raised with the team would be provided within 28 days. Finally, the landlord awarded £25 due to the service failure it identified in not providing sufficient information within the stage one response.
  2. Having considered everything, this Service does not consider the landlord’s handling of this matter to be reasonable. Following the resident raising the concerns in August 2021, the landlord failed to provide an update to the resident for one year and 4 months, and when it did provide an update, it was to refer the resident to another team which was unreasonable as this information could have been provided earlier. Due to this extended delay, the issues regarding the service charge remained outstanding and the matter could not be progressed for over one year.
  3. This Service considers that the landlord’s actions amounted to maladministration when considering the failings identified above. The landlord’s offer of £25 was not proportionate nor reasonable when considering the extent of the delay and the impact caused to the resident during the period of the delay; as a result, this Service considers that £500 is a more proportionate and reasonable amount (the £25 previously offered to the resident can be deducted from the payment if it has already been paid). This is in line with this Services remedies guidance which states that compensation in the range of £100 to £600 is appropriate where a finding of maladministration is made but there is no permanent impact caused to the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman is entitled to make its own determination on the level of compensation based on its assessment of the impact of the landlord’s failures when dealing with issues a resident has raised. When considering this impact, the Ombudsman is not limited to a landlord’s compensation policy. Instead, it focuses on what it deems fair and reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
  5. Following the above delays in relation to the landlord’s response, the resident provided evidence of emails detailing ongoing delays with the service charge team in regard to the reimbursement for the overpaid service charges. It is this Service’s understanding based on the evidence submitted that these delays have been ongoing for over one year since the stage two response was issued. Having considered everything, these additional delays cannot be considered within this complaint.
  6. The reason for this is because the landlord has not had a chance to provide a response to this additional complaint regarding the extended delays. This is in accordance with paragraph 42a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which outlines that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
  7. Following the resident contacting the service charge team as advised within the stage two response, the situation progressed from then and meetings took place to discuss whether any service charges were owed to the residents. Under the circumstances, this Service does not have the full scope of knowledge and evidence to determine why there was an extended delay and what actions the landlord took during this period to ensure adjustments were considered and payments were raised. To assist in the resolution of this matter, an order has been included below requesting that the landlord provide an update to all the residents confirming the adjustment amounts following the service charge assessments. If any amount is owed to residents, the landlord must set out a reasonable timeframe of when this will be paid to the residents. This must be completed within 8 weeks of this report.
  8. Furthermore, an additional order has been included requesting that the landlord assess the additional delays of paying the service charge adjustments to the resident from when the resident first contacted the service charge team. If the landlord identifies any failings and considers the length of the delay period, it should provide reasonable and proportionate compensation to the resident in accordance with its policy. If the landlord does not consider that any compensation is owed, it should set out the reasons for this. This must be completed within 4 weeks of this report.
  9. If the resident is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the above order, the resident can raise a complaint regarding the extended delay issues. If both parties do not reach a resolution following the internal complaints procedure, the complaint can be brought to this Service for further consideration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the issues with the bin/bicycle store areas.
    4. Maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident in relation to his dissatisfaction with the service charge.

Orders

Within 4/8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:

  1. Pay the resident compensation totaling £1,200within 4 weeks of this report for the failings found in the report. This amount is broken down as follows:

 

          £200 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB.

 

          £400 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs.

 

          £100 in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the issues with the bin / bicycle store area.

 

          £500 in relation to the delayed communications with the resident in relation to the service charges. The previous £25 offered to the resident can be deducted from the payment if it has already been paid.

  1. Consult with all affected residents on the future of the bicycle store and improvements for the bin store area. The landlord is to be clear about the available options, considering what its obligations are. This must be completed within 8 weeks of this report.
  2. Ensure that any improvements or works deemed to be necessary in relation to the above must be completed within 4 weeks of the consultation with the residents.
  3. Offer the resident a meeting to review any outstanding issues and discuss its plan is to stop the ASB issues from recurring. The landlord must ensure all outstanding issues are addressed in accordance with its policy. This must be completed within 8 weeks of this report.
  4. Provide an update to all the residents confirming the adjustment amounts following the service charge assessments. If any amount is owed to residents, the landlord must set out a reasonable timeframe of when this will be paid to the residents. This must be completed within 8 weeks of this report.
  5. Assess the additional delays of paying the service charge adjustments to the resident from when the resident first contacted the service charge team. If the landlord identifies any failings, it should provide reasonable and proportionate compensation to the resident. If the landlord does not consider that any compensation is owed, it should set out the reasons for this. This must be completed within 4 weeks of this report.
  6. Consider modifying its ASB policy to differentiate between unknown perpetrators of ASB and those who it is unable to identify. Unknown perpetrators can be identified where there is CCTV or with a little bit of work from the landlord, in these circumstances a course of action more in line with what happens when the perpetrators are known is needed. This must be completed within 8 weeks of this report.