Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202217689)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217689

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around:
    1. Managing agent fees and charges for heating and hot water.
    2. Lift breakdowns.
    3. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    4. The standard of communal cleaning.
    5. Fire safety.
    6. A charge for communal window cleaning.
  2. This report has also assessed the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant in a 3 bedroom flat, which she has occupied since April 2010. She is a tenant of the landlord, who owns a lease on the property (head leaseholder). The landlord manages the services inside the building, including the lifts and communal cleaning services. A managing agent maintains the external parts of the estate on behalf of the freeholder. The block is served by 2 lifts.
  2. On 15 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to questions she and other residents had asked it about fire safety, the waking watch and remedial works to the building. It stated that the cladding did not pose a fire risk.However, tests had found that there were “missing and insufficient cavity barriers in parts of the external wall system”. It assured the resident that it was in discussion with the developer regarding remedial works and that it would keep residents updated as this progressed.The landlordstated it was unable to share the cladding report (intrusive survey report) with the resident as this could “compromise its ability to pursue any third parties for liability”. It added that the waking watch patrolled each floor every 15 minutes and that it was looking to temporarily upgrade the existing fire alarm system and install new sensors in each flat.
  3. The landlord wrote to all residents on 17 May 2021 to state that it had received a request for it to share a copy of the intrusive survey report. It explained that it was unable to provide residents with a copy of the document as this was “sensitive information that may be required as part of a future legal case”. It stated that it was however happy to provide residents with a summary of the report findings. On 2 June 2021, the landlord told residents it had completed the final parts of the fire alarm installation and that it had reduced the waking watch to 1 officer per block. It wrote again on 29 June 2021 to explain that it would reduce the waking watch from 1 July 2021 due to the limited number of residents who required help evacuating the building in an emergency.
  4. On 16 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a number of concerns, which the landlord recorded as a stage 1 complaint. Neither the landlord nor the resident have provided the Service with a copy of the letter. However, it is understood the resident complained that:
    1. She should not have to pay towards managing agent fees or communal energy charges as she is a tenant rather than a leaseholder.
    2. There had been multiple lift breakdowns and she was unhappy with the amount of time the landlord took to repair them.
    3. The CCTV had been ineffective in deterring antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    4. The standard of communal cleaning in the building had been poor.
    5. She wanted the landlord to disclose the 2 intrusive survey reports from July 2020 and October 2021 and was unhappy it would take 6 months for remedial works to start.
    6. She did not believe her windows could be cleaned and was unclear as to why she was being charged a separate fee for window cleaning.
  5. On 30 May 2022, the landlord informed the resident it needed more time to investigate her complaint and that it anticipated issuing its stage 1 response by 17 June 2022. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 17 June 2022. This stated that:
    1. Tenants, as well as leaseholders, were liable to pay service charges where the services provided were shared.
    2. The external areas of block were managed and maintained by the managing agent as instructed by the freeholder. Its services were paid for through the service charge.
    3. The service charge did not include any repairs or insurance costs as it did not recover these from tenants. It attached a “complete list” of the services the managing agent provided.
    4. She could make an application to the First-Tier Tribunal if she believed any service charge costs were unreasonable.
    5. In 2016, it wrote to all residents setting out how residents would be charged for heating and hot water.
    6. Her heating and hot water were provided from a communal energy centre on her estate, which was owned and managed by the freeholder. Each property was connected to the energy centre, where individual heating and hot water usage was monitored.
    7. The landlord was charged for the use of all properties and instructed a third-party agent to collect the charges from each home for their own usage.
    8. Residents could not switch suppliers because the homes were connected to the communal energy centre.
    9. It planned to replace the lift before 31 March 2023 and would update her within 3 months on how this was progressing.
    10. It had put the lifts back into service within its target of 20 working days. However, it offered the resident a one-off £250 reduction in her the service charge for the inconvenience caused. It referred this as a “goodwill payment”.
    11. The cleaner attended from Monday to Friday and the landlord also visited at least once a month to monitor the quality of the cleaning. It offered for her to join it on its next estate inspection in July 2022.
    12. The CCTV had helped it identify tenants who had left rubbish in the communal areas instead of the bins, and it had spoken to them. It hoped this reassured the resident the CCTV was being used and acted upon when necessary.
    13. Marijuana was not something it had smelt during its visits to the building but encouraged the resident to report the matter to the safer neighbourhoods team. It had made the safer neighbourhoods team aware of her ASB concerns and had asked it to patrol the building whenever it was in the area.
    14. It was aware there had been reports of ASB by “unknown individuals” gaining access to the basement area. In spring 2022, it had installed a new door and extended the CCTV coverage. Since then, it had noticed a reduction in ASB reports.
    15. The cladding material was non-combustible. However, as it had identified some deficiencies in the external wall system, it planned to carry out remediation works. Given the “current market conditions”, it would take 6 months before works could start.
    16. It had reviewed the evacuation strategy for the building and introduced a waking watch as there were residents with Personal Emergency Evacuation Plan (PEEP) requirements. It had also installed a temporary fire alarm system.
    17. It had responded to residents on 17 May 2021, stating that it was unable to share the intrusive inspection reports. This was because doing so could compromise its ability to pursue any third parties for liability. Instead, it had provided a 1 page summary of the report findings.
    18. The charge for window cleaning was for the communal windows only. As the resident’s windows formed part of her home, it was her responsibility to clean them. The tilt and turn nature of the windows meant she should be able to clean them from the inside.
  6. On 4 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. She stated that:
    1. As it was not looking after her block, she should not have to pay toward costs for the external managing agent. She felt these should only be charged to leaseholders.
    2. She should not have to pay communal energy charges and she had never been consulted about them prior to them being introduced in 2016.
    3. There had been issues with the lifts for over 12 years, which was because of the landlord’s “refusal to pay for parts”. The lift broke down at least every other day causing disruption.
    4. She believed she was entitled to “much more than the £250 reduction” to the costs of the lift maintenance.
    5. The block was regularly vandalised and she did not feel the CCTV had been effective in making it safe. Drug use continued to be an issue and the smell was persistent.
    6. One cleaner had been assigned to clean 4 blocks within the estate, and not enough time was spent cleaning each block.
    7. Residents had requested full disclosure of the intrusive inspection reports and were entitled to copies of the full reports rather than just a summary.
    8. Remedial works had been identified over 2 years ago. It was unacceptable that they would take another 6 months to start works, putting residents at risk.
    9. There were no communal windows located in the block except for one window on the lower ground floor. Cleaning of this window, which was very small, should not be included as a separate charge.
  7. On 15 July 2022, the landlord wrote to residents about ASB reports it had been receiving. This included “habitual smoking/dealing of illegal substances”, disposal of rubbish in communal areas, throwing water balloons over the balcony and stealing other residents’ parcels. It stated that it would fully cooperate “with the authorities in assuring” that the ASB and drug dealing were prevented. It advised residents to assist it in reporting any ASB or illegal activities to the police or landlord.
  8. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response on 24 August 2022. It stated that:
    1. The management fee that would have been in the original tenancy agreements is what it considered the charges it must pay the external managing agent.
    2. It was committed to meeting with the managing agent twice a year to ensure the services it was charging to residents were of a good standard.
    3. It was satisfied its stage 1 response was clear on the role of the managing agent and that she had been correctly advised to apply to the FTT if she believed her service charges were unreasonable.
    4. The costs she was being asked to pay by the energy provider were costs relating to personal consumption within her home. It was not charging residents for any communal heating costs.
    5. Since it had issued its stage 1 response, it had already started to source contractors to assist in modernising the lift in the resident’s block. It aimed to replaced them by the end of January 2023.
    6. While it aimed to restore lifts as quickly as possible, there were occasions where it needed to order parts. It was satisfied it had restored “at least one lift” within 20 working days for outages that had occurred in the previous 12 months. It offered a revised one-off service charge reduction of £750 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by lift breakdowns.
    7. It installed CCTV to deter ASB and help catch any perpetrators. It advised residents needed to continue reporting incidents to the police. It would share the CCTV footage with them.
    8. There were other alternative ASB deterrents it could explore. It would send residents a survey in September 2022 and feed the results back to them.
    9. It visited the block on 25 July 2022 for an estate inspection and was satisfied that the cleaning was of a good standard. It encouraged the resident to attend the inspection on 15 September 2022 so it could jointly identify any cleaning issues and resolve them.
    10. While it was unable to share the full intrusive surveyor’s reports with residents, it acknowledged that it should have provided more information. It “sincerely” apologised for the lack of clarity and admitted it needed to be more transparent. It went on to provide further updates.
    11. The charges relating to window cleaning within the resident’s service charge breakdown did not relate to external windows but to window panes within the building. Those charges were originally included as part of the cleaning charges but were later separated in the service charge breakdown for more transparency.
  9. On 25 October 2022, the landlord sent residents a survey to gauge their views on how to tackle ASB in the building. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 9 November 2022 to say that it was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it had not answered her queries. She stated that she wanted the landlord to “fix the lifts permanently” and for it to disclose the full intrusive survey reports. She added that the landlord had “repeatedly” told her it did not have permission to carry out the remediation works and was waiting for the freeholder’s approval.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a lift policy which states that it complies with the Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations 1998 (LOLER). It will inspect lifts either at 6 monthly or yearly intervals depending on its type and use. It will also communicate any temporary inconveniences with those affected by lack of service. The policy lists the following timescales for attending lift breakdowns:
    1. 1 hour maximum response time when passengers are trapped in the lift or for safety critical situations where people are at risk.
    2. 2 to 4 hours for non-safety critical lift breakdowns depending on whether it is during or outside “working hours”.
    3. Repairs and maintenance of equipment caused by damage to, failure of, or a major change in operating conditions likely to affect the lift or passenger safety are attended to within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy lists 2 categories of responsive repair, which are emergency and routine. It aims to attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and have all major services restored within 24 hours. Routine repairs are completed within 20 working days from the date of the report.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy states that it recognises that any one agency alone may not be able to resolve ASB in communities. The landlord therefore adopts a multi-agency approach to preventing and tackling ASB and offers police and local authority support when they are able to take action.
  4. The landlord awards compensation in line with its compensation and goodwill gestures policy. It makes discretionary payments of up to £250 for distress and inconvenience  In some circumstances, such as where there have been multiple failures, it may offer higher levels of compensation if agreed by a senior manager.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It acknowledges complaints within 2 working days and issues stage 1 responses within 10 working days. It will also contact the resident to discuss the outcome and give them the opportunity to respond and ask questions. It refers to the next stage as the “stage 2 review”, which it issues within 20 working days. If it is not able to respond to complaints within the abovementioned timescales, it will send the resident an action plan telling them how long it will take for it to complete any outstanding actions.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident had originally brought her complaint to the Ombudsman as a group complaint. This raised concerns about how a number of tenants in 2 different blocks had been impacted by the issues raised. The resident has raised her own complaint with this Service as she is unhappy with the landlord’s responses to her concerns. This report will therefore focus on the complaint as it relates to the resident and how any actions or omissions of the landlord had affected her directly.

Managing agent fees and charges for heating and hot water

  1. Where a complaint concerns service charges, it is important to distinguish between the remits of the Ombudsman and the FTT. The Ombudsman can investigate:
    1. Whether the resident received the service being paid for.
    2. Whether the standard and level of service provided was appropriate.
    3. Whether the landlord provided key information to the resident on request about the service charges.
  2. The FTT is responsible for considering disputes about whether a service charge is payable. It may determine whether the level of service charge demanded is reasonable. The Ombudsman does not have remit to consider this. Our focus in this investigation is therefore on whether the landlord provided a fair and reasonable response to the resident’s queries and complaints, rather than on the amount of money she was required to pay for her communal services.
  3. In response to the resident’s concerns that she should not be paying towards external managing agent costs, the evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately. It explained it its stage 1 response that both tenants and leaseholders were liable to pay for communal services it provided. It clarified that the landlord provided “most of the services” to the inside of the building and that the managing agent, who was instructed by the freeholder of the block, provided external services on the estate. It gave a list of some services included as part of the managing agent fees and reassured the resident that these did not include any costs towards repairs or insurance. This demonstrates a customer focused approach by the landlord in providing a thorough and clear explanation of the managing agent fees. The landlord took reasonable steps to be transparent and reassure the resident that she was being correctly charged.
  4. Furthermore, the landlord attached a complete list of the services the managing agent provided, which was appropriate. It explained how it calculated the service charges and correctly signposted the resident to the FTT if she felt her service charge was unreasonable. In addition, the landlord provided details of support services she could access if she needed any financial advice.
  5. With regard to the resident’s concerns she was paying towards communal energy costs, the landlord appropriately explained that the charges were for personal rather than communal energy consumption. This would have cleared any confusion around the reason for the charge and reassured her she was not paying for heating or hot water that she was not using. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that, following introduction to the Heat Network (Metering and Billing) Regulations 2014, it wrote to residents in 2016 to inform them of the changes it would make to the way resident would be billed for heating and hot water. It also clarified that residents were being billed directly by the energy provider rather than the landlord.
  6. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the records show the landlord acted appropriately. It has demonstrated it made reasonable efforts to respond to the resident’s complaint about managing agent fees and charges for heating and hot water.

Lift breakdowns

  1. The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced inconvenience as a result of the lift breaking down regularly.
  2. The landlord has provided copies of its lift repair logs for the period between September 2021 and May 2024. It has also provided copies of reports that show it carried out monthly servicing of the lifts. The repair logs show that the lift was reported to be out of service 24 times. It is noted that the block is served by 2 lifts and the records indicate that when breakdowns were reported, one of the lifts was still in service on most occasions.
  3. The logs also show that the contractor was consistent in attending to callouts within the timescales set out in the landlord’s lift policy. In 12 of the reported cases, it is recorded that the landlord completed repairs within 48 hours. On 4 occasions, the contractor has attended to find both lifts were working normally. With regard to the other reported breakdowns, the landlord repaired all except one within 5 days. Although it took the landlord 16 working days to complete one of the repairs, the other lift was still working at the time. It is acknowledged that having only one lift in service would have been the cause of inconvenience. However, the evidence therefore shows that, overall, the landlord had responded to residents’ reports of a broken lift in a timely manner, and in line with both its lift and responsive repairs policies. There is no evidence of an undue delay or a failing by the landlord in completing the repairs.
  4. It is acknowledged that some delays to repairs are unavoidable in cases where the landlord has to wait for parts to become available. As the lifts were due for modernisation, this may have made some parts harder to source. In these cases, some delays would be out of the landlord’s control. It is acknowledged that budgetary constraints would mean it may not be able to replace equipment like lifts as quickly as it would like. However, given the frequency of lift breakdowns, it was appropriate that the landlord took steps to upgrade them. In its stage 1 response, it advised the resident it would replace both lifts before 31 March 2023. In its stage 2 response, it revised its timescale and told the resident that it aimed to get the lifts “completely modernised by the end of January 2023”.The landlord confirmed that the planned renovation of the lifts had gone ahead in 2023 and that both lifts had been replaced.
  5. The landlord acted appropriately in recognising the inconvenience the breakdowns had caused to the resident. It is therefore positive to note that it offered her a £250 reduction in her service charge in recognition of this,. This was later raised to £750 in its stage 2 response. The reason for the significant uplift in the offer is unclear. However, it is noted that the landlord was resolution-focussed in its approach. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

ASB

  1. It is acknowledged that living in a block that is affected by ASB can have a significantly detrimental impact on a resident’s enjoyment of their home. However, when considering complaints relating to ASB, it is not the role of the Service to reach a decision on whether it has occurred. Instead, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports.
  2. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous records of ASB reports from the resident. However, the records show that, as part of her complaint, she raised concerns about other residents leaving rubbish in the communal areas and the smell of marijuana from other properties. Furthermore, in her stage 2 complaint, she stated that her block had been “regularly vandalised”. She added that the CCTV the landlord had installed did not make her feel safe.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord did take measures to respond to those reports. It explained to the resident that it had been using the CCTV to identify anyone leaving rubbish in communal areas and that it had spoken to the perpetrators. It assured her that it had not smelt marijuana during its visits to the block but encouraged her to report the matter to the local safer neighbourhood team, the contact details of which it had left on the communal notice boards. This was appropriate.
  4. The landlord has also demonstrated that it liaised with the police and requested that they patrol the area. Furthermore, the landlord sent residents a letter on 15 July 2022, to raise awareness about the ASB reports it had received and to ask for their cooperation in helping it deal with the matter. It reassured residents it was working with external agencies to tackle any illegal activities and advised them to report incidents of ASB to the landlord or police.
  5. In response to the resident’s reports of vandalism, the landlord explained in its stage 1 response that it had installed a new door to prevent “unknown individuals” from entering the building and that it had extended the CCTV to cover a wider area. It stated that the measures had resulted in a reduction in ASB reports. Furthermore, the evidence shows the landlord made efforts to consult with residents on what additional steps it could take to tackle ASB. It sent the resident a survey in October 2023. This enabled her to make suggestions about any other actions the landlord could take to make the block feel safer. In view of the above, the landlord has demonstrated that it responded reasonably and proportionately to the resident’s reports of ASB in her building.

Communal cleaning

  1. Other than the concerns the resident had raised about communal cleaning as part of her complaint, the landlord has not provided any other reports or correspondence from the resident about the matter.
  2. In response to the resident’s concerns about the standard of communal cleaning in the block, the landlord explained that it provided a weekly service and carried out regular monitoring visits to check the quality of the cleaning. Furthermore, the records show it had carried out an inspection on 25 July 2022 and found the standard of the cleaning to be satisfactory. It acted appropriately by encouraging the resident, both in its stage 1 and 2 responses, to accompany it on inspections so she could help identify where she felt the cleaning was inadequate. This demonstrates that the landlord was making efforts to work positively with the resident to resolve any issues she had with its cleaning service. The evidence therefore shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about its communal cleaning service

Fire safety

  1. The evidence shows that, following an intrusive cladding survey in 2020, the landlord invited all residents in the block to send it their queries about fire safety measures and proposed remedial works. On 16 October 2020, it wrote to residents with responses to their questions and advised them that it would update residents on the progress of the planned remediation works. This demonstrates that, following the cladding survey, the landlord had appropriately consulted with residents.
  2. It is also noted that the landlord took reasonable steps to address any fire safety risks to the block while it was waiting for remedial works to be completed. It reviewed its evacuation strategy and introduced a waking watch service. Furthermore, it updated the building’s fire alarm system and installed new fire sensors in each flat
  3. However, following its letter of 16 October 2020, there is no indication it had provided any further regular updates regarding the works. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on dealing with cladding complaints states that landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every 3 months. This applies even where there is little or no change. Landlords should also ensure they respond to specific issues raised by residents and not provide entirely or substantially generic responses.
  4. The landlord informed the resident that it was not able to share a copies of the official external wall surveys (intrusive survey) documents with her as these were “sensitive”. It stated that their disclosure could affect its ability to take up a legal claim and that it could only provide residents with a summary of the reports. It is beyond our remit to challenge any legal advice that may have been given to the landlord. However, although it reassured the resident the cladding was non-combustible, it did alert her to issues with the external wall system that required remediation work. Considering the fire risk implications, this would have caused her understandable anxiety. It would have therefore been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have provided clearer and more specific information, and to provide regular assurances it was making appropriate efforts to progress the remedial works.
  5. There is no indication the landlord held regular meetings with residents, or that it sent newsletters about the works. This would have helped keep residents updated and provided some ongoing reassurance that works were progressing.
  6. The landlord acknowledged its poor communication in its stage 2 response and admitted it had not provided sufficient information regarding its surveys and ongoing efforts to address the issues with the wall system. Although it provided a comprehensive update in its response, it is unclear why it could not have done this sooner. This would have demonstrated it was taking a customer focused approach and would have helped alleviate the resident’s worries about living in an unsafe building. The landlord could not demonstrate it had adequately updated the resident on progress of remedial works or that it provided sufficient information about the outcome of its surveys. This would have caused her avoidable distress and amounts to maladministration.

A charge for communal window cleaning

  1. It is unclear when the landlord began to include a separate cost for internal communal window cleaning on its service charge breakdowns. In addition, there are no records to show whether the landlord had informed the resident it would list window cleaning as a separate charge, or explain why it had done this. It is important that landlords provide advance notice of any such changes in order to avoid any confusion over service charges.

Complaint

  1. In its acknowledgement of the resident’s stage 2 complaint, the landlord informed her at the outset that, due to the complexity of the complaint, it required an extension to its 20 working day timescale. It advised her that it would respond within 30 working days. That the landlord tried to manage the resident’s expectations from the beginning was appropriate. However, it issued its response within 38 working days. Although the delay was not excessive, the landlord should have informed the resident that there would be a further delay and agreed a revised timescale with her. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that, if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties. That it failed to do so was a departure from the Code and amounts to a failing.
  2. Furthermore, the Code requires landlords to undertake thorough complaint investigations and to address all aspects of a complaint. The landlord appropriately explained in its complaint responses why there was a separate charge for window cleaning. Its explanation that this was done to provide greater transparency for residents was reasonable. However, the landlord could have made more effort during the complaints process to provide the resident with information about when the costs for communal window cleaning were first separated out from the overall charges. The complaint response left this issue unanswered and the landlord could reasonably have been more thorough in its explanation. That it did not adequately address this part of the complaint was a further departure from the Code.

Record keeping

  1. The Ombudsman’s report on Knowledge and Information Management, published in May 2023, states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
  2. The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Within the information provided to the Service there is a lack of contemporaneous correspondence both internally or between the resident and the landlord. Despite repeated requests, the landlord it has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s initial complaint or copies of any reports she made regarding ASB or the communal cleaning service prior to her raising her complaint. This has had an impact on the Ombudsman’s ability to refer to certain records during its investigation.
  3. We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around managing agent fees and charges for heating and hot water.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around lift breakdowns.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around ASB.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around the standard of communal cleaning.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around fire safety.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns around a charge for communal window cleaning.
  7. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
  8. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
    1. Apologise to the resident, in line with the Service’s Remedies Guidance.
    2. Pay the resident the revised compensation amount of £350, which is calculated as follows:
      1. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its lack of communication about fire safety remedial works.
      2. £100 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.

Recommendation

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord to ensure it applies the £750 reduction in the resident’s service charge as offered in its stage 2 response.