One Housing Group Limited (202115156)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115156

One Housing Group Limited

29 March 2023

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of issues with the communal aerial.
2. Concerns about the administration of her service charge account.
3. Concerns that it had offset a compensation payment against arrears.
4. Reports about the lift breaking down.
5. Concerns about the impact of the lift breaking down on her health.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider a complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaint 1e falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident reported within her complaint that she suffers from health issues, and that she had to seek physiotherapy as a result of lift breakdowns. She informed the landlord that she was seeking reimbursement for the costs associated with her physiotherapy. Whilst the resident’s comments are noted, the Ombudsman cannot reach a conclusion as to whether the lift breaking down exacerbated any health issues, or resulted in the need for physiotherapy. Such a decision would be best reached by a medical expert or someone similarly qualified.
It follows that the resident may wish to seek legal advice, or make a personal injury claim in respect of the reported impact of the issues on her health. Whilst we cannot make any conclusions regarding the resident’s health, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused as a result of the lifts breaking down as part of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been the leaseholder of the landlord’s property since 2017. The property is a two-bedroom flat on the third floor of a purpose built building. The lease agreement is between the resident and the landlord.
The resident raised two separate complaints with the landlord, as follows:
1. Complaint A was raised in December 2020, in relation to reports of a communal aerial fault which had left the resident with intermittent Sky TV Services (Sky) for months. The resident requested £170 compensation for the months of March 2020 to December 2020 as she stated she was paying for her Sky package during this period, but was unable to use it. The resident had also requested an explanation as to the fault. A stage one response was issued in March 2021 and a stage two response in April 2021.
2. Complaint B was raised in June 2021, in relation to further reports of a communal aerial fault. The resident also expressed concern that compensation which the landlord had offered in response to Complaint A had been offset against arrears. In addition, the resident complained about the lifts in her building breaking down and the impact this had on her, together with the landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s policies and procedures

Complaints Policy

The landlord uses “early resolution” when a complaint can be resolved quickly without the need to log a formal complaint and will aim to resolve the complaint within three working days.
If the resident remains unhappy, the matter can be considered at stage one of its complaints process, with a complaint response issued within 10 working days. Stage two complaints are dealt with via a senior manager review, with a complaint response issued within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Complaint A

The resident hasinformed this Service that she has experienced issues with her communal aerial for some time. As a result of the aerial issues, the resident says that her Sky TV had been impacted. She says that she first reported the issue to the landlord in March 2020.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its repairs logs. This shows an entry was made on 4 December 2020 relating to the communal aerial. The entry confirmed that the landlord was to follow up with the resident on her reports of aerial issues as she stated that she was paying for a Sky service that she was unable to receive.
A repair job was raised by the landlord on 11 December 2020. A contractor attended that day and confirmed that “testing failed” and recommended installing a two-way splitter and a launch amplifier. The landlord requested a quote from the contractor for the new parts to be installed.
The records show that on 15 December 2020, an internal email was exchanged between landlord staff. This was marked as “complaint”, and confirmed that the landlord had three days to provide the resident with an “early resolution” otherwise the case could be escalated. The landlord noted the following:

a. That there was a communal aerial fault, ongoing for months, affecting the resident’s Sky services.

b. The resident was seeking £170 towards the cost of intermittent Sky services from March 2020 until December 2020.

c. The resident wished to be provided with an explanation for the fault.

In an internal email dated 23 December 2020, the landlord confirmed it had spoken with the resident and advised that a splitter and amplifier would be installed in the new year, as the contractor needed to source the parts. It added that it could not update the resident on her request for compensation as “team members were off”.
On 4 January 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and offered £35 compensation (£10 under the Right to Repair for the communal aerial and £25 as a gesture of goodwill). The resident responded that day, and said it was an unacceptable offer. She reported losing income and said she had “spent hours on phone” yet the amplifier was not fixed.
The landlord confirmed that its contractor would be attending the site on 7 January 2021 to fit the new amplifier. The contractor’s report confirmed that it had attended site on 7 January 2021, fitted an amplifier and integrated it into the system. The report states that the signal had improved.
On 20 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She said that she had not received any call-backs despite leaving messages. She requested a response to her complaint and advised she was continuing to experience issues with her Sky signal. In a response the following day, the landlord apologised for the issue and said that it would raise a job for a contractor to attend. It confirmed that it would discuss the level of compensation with a manager, after the resident had advised she was unhappy with the amount offered.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 January to confirm that a repair job had been raised. The contractor confirmed to the landlord that it would re-attend the site on 26 January 2021, but stated that when it last attended for the same signal issue “all was ok”.
The following day, the resident sent another email confirming why she felt the compensation offer was not acceptable. This was on the basis that it did not reflect the inconvenience and loss of earnings she had incurred whilst trying to resolve the issue. She added that she wished to know how her complaint was being dealt with and stated that a manager had failed to make contact to discuss the compensation offer with her.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord sent an email to the resident, outlining her complaint relating to the aerial fault. It advised that contractors had attended that day and confirmed “signals all fine within the property”. It added that on days when the resident had experienced signal problems, the weather had been particularly bad with heavy snowfall. The landlord informed the resident that after discussions with a manager, the compensation offered was increased to £50 “as a gesture of goodwill”.
In response, the resident requested a formal written reply to her complaint. She reiterated that she had been significantly inconvenienced as a result of the aerial issues.
The landlord issued a further response, via email on 28 January 2021. Within this, it repeated the contents of its email dated 26 January 2021. The resident responded the same day, expressing her frustration at the landlord’s complaint response. She stated that she was promised a morning appointment for an operative to attend to fix the aerial. However, the operative arrived in the afternoon, resulting in a morning’s lost income. She reconfirmed that the call-back service had not worked for five months and questioned what the landlord had done to investigate it.
On 8 February 2021 the resident chased a response to her complaint, which she felt was “unacceptable”. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint on 24 February 2021.
A stage one complaint response was issued on 4 March 2021. Within this, the landlord advised that it had reviewed the compensation offered twice during the early resolution process, and had nothing further to add. It provided the resident with information about how to escalate her complaint.
The resident remained dissatisfied and emailed the landlord on 12 March asking why it had taken 20 days to send its response. The resident followed up with a further email on 25 March 2021 to seek confirmation that the landlord had escalated her complaint.
The landlord’s call log shows that the resident called the landlord on 26 March 2021 to dispute her service charges.
The landlord sent a stage two response on 26 April 2021. Within this it said:
1. Its contractor had attended the site and confirmed the signal strength of the communal aerial to be satisfactory. A new amplifier had been fitted on 7 January 2021. It noted a delay in accessing the TV reception equipment and apologised. It apologised for the inconvenience that was caused as a result of being without a TV during periods of lockdown.
2. A consultation process was due to take place in June 2021 regarding upgrading the communal aerial to SkyQ.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had not been updated in line with its service standards during January 2021 and offered an apology. It confirmed that the call back function was now working. It recognised the resident’s frustration in chasing for responses.
4. It wished to offer a total sum of £220 compensation which included:
  1. £50 as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused with the aerial.
  2. £20 for the delay in repair to the aerial under the Right to Repair.
  3. £50 for the delay in issuing a stage one response.
  4. £75 to reflect the inconvenience caused by having to chase for updates.
The resident accepted the offer of compensation on 28 April 2021.

Complaint B

On 10 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord as she had not received her compensation payment. The landlord responded confirming that the £220 had been paid to the resident’s account to offset arrears, in line with its compensation policy. The resident responded, disputing the arrears and sought clarification on the matter from the landlord.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord apologised for its delay in acknowledging the resident’s email. It advised that a member of the accounts team would provide her with an update on the arrears. On 17 May 2021 the resident was emailed a breakdown of the arrears, confirming a deficit of £200.58.
Meanwhile, on 18 May 2021, the resident reported an issue with the lift in the block and the landlord confirmed that an engineer would attend the same day. The resident also made a further report of aerial issues on 24 May 2021. A contractor attended on 25 May 2021 and replaced another TV amplifier on the east side of the building.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 28 May 2021. She asked for the matter not to be dealt with via the resolution team. During a telephone call on 1 June 2021, the landlord confirmed that the resident had stated:
1. She was unhappy paying for a Sky service that she was not receiving. Even though a contractor had attended in the previous week, she continued to experience issues with her signal.
2. She had spoken with Sky and was told she could not have SkyQ (which had been offered as a solution to the aerial issues) as it was not compatible with the communal aerial.
3. She was unhappy as there had been ongoing lift breakdowns for which she had requested compensation.
4. She disputed the arrears on her account, which the compensation payment had been offset against.
5. She had been unable to speak to anyone regarding clarification of service charges.
6. The telephone call-back system was not working.
The landlord noted that in order to put things right, the resident wished for:
1. All outstanding issues to be fixed.
2. Her service charge to be reimbursed for periods when the lifts were out of service.
3. The original compensation payment to be paid directly to her.
On 18 June 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. It said:

Satellite TV system issues

A report of an issue with the communal aerial was made on 24 May 2021. The site was attended by its contractor on 25 May 2021 and the system was left working. Its contractor concluded signal levels were acceptable. The issue was initially raised in December 2020 and its contractors had attended each time and confirmed a satisfactory signal was being received. It considered the issue was with the resident’s Sky box which was not its responsibility to fix.
Sky could carry out a single resident upgrade to the communal system, allowing the resident to receive SkyQ.
A further appointment had been arranged for its contractor to attend the site and check the communal aerial was working satisfactorily. A joint visit could also be arranged with its contractor and Sky if the resident requested it.
The resident should consider connecting to the communal aerial rather than Sky to receive all terrestrial TV channels.

Telephone call-back system issue

The resident reported the call-back function not working. It was aware that there was a limit to the number of calls that could be held in the call back queue; however, no further issues had been reported.
It wished to apologise for any inconvenience caused; and would be speaking to its telephone provider to see if the capacity could be increased.

Ongoing lift issues

A fault was reported on 25 May 2021. Its contractor attended the same day and a fault was recorded. The engineer attended the following day and found an intermittent fault. The lift was returned to service on 26 May 2021.
A further report was made on 4 June 2021 and the engineer attended the same day. The fault was identified and sorted the same day, however as a precaution a new part was ordered and was due to be fitted on 9 July 2021.
Upon reviewing the repair history both breakdowns were attended within its service offer of 24 hours. It recognised the frustration caused to the resident, but it had attended within its service time.
The resident’s service charge covered the day to day running of the building which included servicing lifts on a monthly basis.

Historic compensation issue

The previous award of £220 compensation was paid to the resident’s rent account, which at the time was £408.31 in arrears.
It was noted the direct debit was collecting less than the monthly charge from 1 April 2019 to 1 March 2020. This had resulted in £273 of arrears during that period.
It apologised for the oversight of the missed increase to the direct debit which should not have happened. It noted needing to improve the way it managed accounts and direct debits.
It advised the resident was still liable for the rent and service charges. It noted its responsibility for controlling the direct debit but recommended that the resident monitored direct debits to ensure they were accurate. The resident was made aware by the Leaseholder Account Advisor in an email on 23 October 2020 of the arrears and quarterly statements were sent on 17 September, 21 December 2020 and 22 March 2021.
It offered £50 as a gesture of goodwill for its error in failing to update the direct debit which would be offset against the outstanding arrears.
It concluded that the satellite TV system and lift issues were responded to within the agreed timescales. The ongoing signal issue was a result of a faulty Sky box and not the communal system.

The resident remained dissatisfied and emailed the landlord on 18 June 2021 to escalate her complaint. She said she had been informed, during a telephone conversation with an employee (no date given), that her account was not in arrears. She advised that she had been incorrectly charged for security and this had not been investigated thoroughly. In response, the landlord said that it had no record on its system of such a call taking place. The resident said she remained unhappy with paying for “such a poor service”, and on 23 June 2021 asked the landlord to acknowledge her escalation request.
A stage two response was issued on 29 July 2021, but dated 22 July 2021 in error. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding and advised that this was owing to “staff shortages”. It reiterated what had been concluded within the stage one response, adding:

a. An incorrect security charge was included within the service charge estimate of 2021-22 and residents were notified in May 2021 of a reduced charge. The landlord removed the charge for all residents as soon as it became aware. It confirmed that the current arrears of £88.40 was reflective of all payments made and corrected monthly charges.

b. It apologised for the disruption the lift breakdowns had caused, however during both occasions there was another lift available to use. One lift was reported out of service for four days. It noted the resident had raised a further report that day of the lift not working.

c. The loss of signal was a result of a faulty Sky receiver box. It did not form part of the communal aerial/satellite system and therefore was the resident’s responsibility to maintain.

d. Its goodwill gesture of £50 was made regarding the service charge error, in line with its compensation policy. It offered a further £50 due to the stage two response being issued late.

e. The resident was advised of her rights to contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied with the decision.

The resident responded the same day querying the stage two response date. She stated:
1. The landlord had sent the response on 29 July 2021, but it was dated 22 July 2021.
2. The response should have been received by 15 July 2021, and had not addressed all her concerns.
3. The response did not confirm why her account was in arrears.
4. She was paying a service charge for lifts that did not work. She stated that she informed the landlord of her health issues, and the impact of the lift failures, yet the landlord’s response failed to acknowledge that.
5. The landlord had failed to acknowledged the ongoing communal issue with Sky and had not compensated her for the loss of service.
6. She advised no-one had made contact with her to discuss her complaint, even though the acknowledgment email she received advised someone would be in touch.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord telephoned the resident regarding issues with the lift. The resident stated that even though only one lift was out on each occasion, it affected the other lift as the button on the ground floor was faulty and the lift service would not come up. She stated the lifts stopped working during the whole month of May. The resident stated that she was in pain and having physiotherapy because of it.
In an email to the landlord on 27 August 2021, the resident confirmed that the issues with Sky, the call back service and the lift had been resolved. However, she wished to be compensated for “service failures”. She said:
1. She was unhappy with the service charge team’s response, specifically relating to the incorrect direct debit charges and providing an accurate account of charges.
2. She wished for the £220 compensation offered from her complaint in January 2021, and the recent offer of £100 to be paid to her directly and not offset as she disputed her arrears.
3. Part of her complaint had not been investigated regarding her service charges.
The landlord requested additional time to respond to the resident’s concerns. A deadline of 10 September 2021 was agreed between both parties. In a follow on response to its stage two, the landlord wrote to the resident on 31 August 2021:

a. It apologised for the incorrect date of the stage two response and offered an apology for a member of staff not making contact with the resident.

b. The £220 had been applied to the resident’s rent account on 12 May 2021.

c. The lifts were serviced within prescribed timescales. However, it appreciated the impact and inconvenience this could have for its residents, specifically for those with health issues as the resident described.

d. Its contractors had met Sky onsite and carried out necessary works.

On 2 September 2021, the landlord apologised for the response sent on 31 August 2021 which did not cover all the aspects of the resident’s complaint, confirming that it had already agreed an extension to the complaint response until 10 September 2021.
The landlord issued a final stage two response on 23 September 2021. It confirmed an error on the extension date which should have been 20 September 2021 and not 10 September as stated in its response. It confirmed the resident was seeking outcomes on the following:

a. Clarity on her service charges.

b. A compensation form for the £100 compensation that had been offered.

c. An explanation for the lift breakdowns and compensation for its failure.

The landlord said:

a. A £200.58 deficit was due to additional mobile security costs during 2018-19 that the resident was liable to pay for.

b. The amounts charged were estimates, and subject to change. It was satisfied that the previous offer of £100 compensation was reasonable.

c. It had no record of either lift being out of service for a period of one month. It understood the frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident but noted that due to the complexity of lift mechanics, breakdowns would unfortunately be unavoidable. The landlord offered sincere apologies but noted its compensation policy was not to reimburse for “inconvenience or consequential loss”.

d. It was not responsible for equipment such as a Sky box and it would not offer compensation.

e. It had tested the call back function and found it to be in working order. It acknowledged that the system may have limited the amount of call backs it could log, however, the issue had been resolved.

f. It wished to offer a further £50 for the delay in issuing its stage two response.

g. The resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

In emails sent to the landlord on 23 September 2021 and 7 October 2021 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with its handling of her complaint. She said:
1. The landlord had failed to investigate her complaint.
2. She had made 25 call-back requests; and the service she had received had been “poor”.
3. She was unclear on how much compensation the landlord had awarded and requested clarification.
The landlord responded on 1 November 2021. It advised that a member of the team would go through the resident’s accounts with her, if she wished. It offered a further apology if the level of compensation offered had been unclear. It wished to confirm that the offer was £100. The landlord also reminded the resident that she could contact this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Assessment and findings

Communal aerial

The landlord’s published repair times confirm that routine repairs will be attended and completed within 28 working days. Its repair policy also states that “it is responsible for maintenance or servicing of a communal system”. The resident’s lease agreement obliges her to pay service charges to cover TV aerial and satellite maintenance.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 30 December 2020 that the earliest report recorded of an aerial fault was on logged on 11 December 2020. However, the resident reported that the issue had been ongoing since March 2020. While the resident’s comments are noted, this Service has not been provided with any contemporaneous evidence showing that the landlord had been made aware of the aerial issues prior to December 2020. Our assessment has therefore focused on the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports from December 2020 onwards.
The evidence shows that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports appropriately. During December 2020, through to August 2021, the resident reported the issue six times. On each occasion the landlord appropriately arranged for its contractor to attend the site and investigate the matter further. The contractor attended all six appointments within eight working days, meeting the landlords repair obligations, as set out above. It is acknowledged that experiencing and having to report the issue with such frequency would have been the cause of inconvenience and frustration to the resident. However, the evidence shows that the landlord responded appropriately to the reports that it received.
As detailed above, the landlord initially offered £35 compensation which the resident refused. The landlord issued a stage two response in April 2021,recognising the frustration caused to the resident in having to chase the landlord for responses. It appropriately acknowledged that it had not met its own service standards by issuing late complaint responses,and that the resident had been inconvenienced as a result.
The landlord increased its compensation offer to £220, and appropriately provided a breakdown for how the figure had been reached. By doing this, the landlord offered a sum that was proportionate to the level of detriment caused to the resident because of its failings. This demonstrated that it was trying to put things right and offered reasonable redress.
As detailed above, the signal issues persisted and the resident raised a further complaint – Complaint B. The landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner. It appropriately investigated the cause of the issue by arranging for a site visit with its contractor and a Sky engineer. Having done so, it reached the conclusion that the issue was a result of the resident’s Sky box and not a fault within the communal aerial system. This was appropriately explained by the landlord in the stage one response to Complaint B.
Therefore, although it is noted that the resident experienced further inconvenience, this was not as a result of a failing by the landlord. In addition, the landlord complied with its repair timescales and reconfirmed the resident’s maintenance responsibility for the Sky box. The resident was also advised that although her Sky box was not working, she was still able to access terrestrial TV via the communal aerial. The actions the landlord took in this instance were fair and reasonable.

Administration of the service charge account

As detailed above, the resident was unhappy that the compensation paid in respect of Complaint A was offset against arrears on her service charge account. She also contested the arrears themselves.
In its response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that some of the arrears had accrued as a result of its own failure to update the resident’s direct debit. For this, it offered an apology and a goodwill payment of £50 for its omission to update the direct debit. In identifying its error, the landlord went some way in trying to put things right.
In its stage two response, the landlord advised that it had incorrectly added a security service charge to the resident’s 2021-22 estimate. In identifying the error, it wrote to all residents and notified them of a reduced charge. The landlord correctly informed the resident that service charges are calculated as an estimate, based on the previous year’s costs. The resident’s lease sets out her obligations to pay service charges to the landlord in addition to her rent. Service charges are “amounts payable for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements, insurance or the landlord’s costs of management, to the extent that the costs have been reasonably incurred”. The landlord was reasonably entitled to cover the costs incurred for services provided.
Overall, the landlord did not accurately manage the service charge account which evidently resulted in some of the resident’s arrears. The landlord failed to adhere to the principles within its compensation policy which states that, “staff must take personal responsibility for ensuring residents never have to chase the landlord for information”.
The resident spent a significant amount of time and effort contacting the landlord to clarify the arrears on her account. She repeatedly requested call backs from the service charge team and noted her dissatisfaction at their responses.While the landlord considered the inconvenience caused by the mistake in updating the direct debit, it failed to consider using its discretion under its compensation policy for the time and trouble caused to the resident in pursuing the matter. For that reason, its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings. this Service has ordered a further compensation payment to reflect this.

Compensation paid to offset arrears

The landlord’s compensation policy states “where there are arrears on a resident’s account, any compensation or payments to which they are entitled should be offset against their rent accounts”. The policy also states that, “the landlord must inform the resident of its decision to pay in to the rent account before undertaking the transaction; this will be confirmed on the acceptance form”.
When the landlord issued its response to Complaint A, it offered the resident £220. Its letter was accompanied by a compensation acceptance form. This form states that the landlord’s policy “is to offset any compensation offered against any rent or service charge arrears at the time of settlement”.
The landlord’s decision to offset the compensation payment against arrears on the account was therefore in line with its policy. The evidence shows that the landlord had also taken steps – by way of the compensation form – to inform the resident that the compensation would be offset against any arrears on her account.
However, it is acknowledged that the resident incurred a proportion of her arrears, approximately £273, from 1 April 2019 to 1 March 2020, as a result of the landlord collecting a direct debit amount less than the monthly charge. Having reviewed the resident’s “statement of account”, the resident had been in arrears from January 2019 onwards. As such, the evidence suggests that some of the compensation would have been offset against arrears even if the landlord had amended the direct debit correctly. Furthermore, the resident would have been paying an increased amount in her service charge had the direct debit been amended at the correct time. Therefore, the resident was not negatively impacted as a result.

Lift breakdowns

The lease agreement states that the landlord shall “maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and improve…media and machinery and plant within the premises of the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder”.
The landlord’s repair policy states where it is responsible for maintenance or servicing of a communal system, it will do so in line with published repairs and maintenance service standards. The landlord’s published information states that emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours of a repair report and made safe, and lift breakdowns are treated as an emergency repair. Any follow-up work is treated as a routine repair and completed within 28 days.
The landlord’s records show a total of 17 faults, logged between 18 May 2021 and 6 October 2021. The records also show that the landlord met its repair obligations by attending all lift repairs within 24 hours. In response to the resident’s concerns about the lift being out of service, the landlord advised that while one was out of use, the second lift was in use.
The resident advised that this was not always the case and that while one lift was out of service, the second lift was affected as it “would not come up”. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident’s statement is supported by the contractor’s repair log. This states on 18 and 23 May, and on two occasions on 25 May 2021, that the resident reported the doors to the second lift were not opening. Furthermore, on three of the four occasions, it was reported that both lifts were out of service and faults were recorded as “doors not opening”, “out of service”, “not responding”.
The landlord recognised within its Complaint B responses the impact of the breakdowns on the resident, especially given her health issues. The resident reported that she had suffered with “coccyx pain and back pain due to carrying her baby up and down the stairs several times a day”.
The landlord’s compensation policy states in circumstances where a resident has evidently experienced “general inconvenience” it will use its discretion to offer a gesture of goodwill payment. However, in its third and final stage two response, the landlord stated its compensation policy was not designed to “reimburse for inconvenience”, after the resident had requested compensation for the lifts being out of service, which resulted in her having physiotherapy for her back.
In the circumstances, and given its policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion and make an offer of compensation that reflected the inconvenience that was experienced by the resident. It is acknowledged that the lifts being out of service would have been the cause of general inconvenience. However, the resident had explained that she had to carry her young child up and down three flights of stairs when the lifts were out of service. While the landlord apologised for the inconvenienced caused, this was not a proportionate response in the circumstances. Therefore, the Ombudsman has made an order which better reflects the detriment caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

Complaint A was raised under the landlord’s“early resolution” stage of its complaints policy. The “early resolution” stage is used to resolve “straightforward complaints”, within threedays.At this stage, the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation.
As the complaint was not resolved during “early resolution”, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to escalate the matter. The landlord’s policy, as detailed above, states that where early resolution is unsuccessful, a stage one complaint should be raised. It is unclear why the landlord did not do this; however, that it did not was a failing in its complaint handling.
As a result, the resident was compelled to request a formal written response to her complaint on two separate occasions. The landlord failed to escalate the complaint to stage one until March 2021. This far exceeded its three-day timeframe to resolve complaints under “early resolution”. It was not reasonable that the resident had to request formal written responses, or prompt the landlord to escalate her complaint. This caused her unnecessary time and trouble.
Part 4.1 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents, and recognises that there may be times when appropriate action can be agreed immediately. However, the Code also states under Part 4.1 that landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. In this case, the complaint stalled at the “early resolution” stage, and efforts to address the resident’s concerns at this stage hindered access to the complaints procedure.
Part 4.1 of the Code states that it is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. An order has been made for the landlord to review its approach to the early resolution of complaints, considering the failings in this case and the Ombudsman’s Code, to ensure that its attempts at early resolution are not stalling or unreasonably protracting its complaints procedure, and that early resolution has not become a de-facto “stage 0”.
The landlord issued a stage one response to Complaint A on 4 March 2021, 42 days after the resident requested a complaint escalation. This was a significant departure from the 10 working day response timeframe set out within its complaints policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge this within the stage one response, or when it reviewed the complaint at stage two.
In addition, the landlord’s complaints policy states that it should acknowledge complaints within two working days and a resident “should not have to chase for information”. The evidence provided to this Service shows that as the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaints, she sent further correspondence seeking confirmation that her concerns were being treated as a complaint. The landlord therefore failed to provide the level of service set out in its policy, and this again caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble. This was a failing in the landlord’s complaints handling and it should now take steps to put things right.
The landlord issued its stage two response to Complaint A 11 days outside of its 20 working day time frame as set out within its policy. The landlord did however, appropriately acknowledge the delay within its complaint response and offered £50 compensation. It further demonstrated an effort to put things right by offering a further £75 compensation payment for failing to keep the resident suitably informed. This was a proportionate response and offer in the circumstances.
The landlord issued three stage two responses to Complaint B. The first stage two response was sent in July 2021, in which the landlord addressed the resident’s complaint concerns individually. As resolution to the complaint, the landlord offered £100 compensation which included a £50 goodwill payment for the late stage two response. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response stating that the landlord had failed to investigate the main area of her complaint in relation to service charges. The landlord agreed to look at the matter again.
A second stage two “follow on response” was then issued on 31 August 2021. As detailed above, the response was very brief and did not address all of the issues that had been raised by the resident. Landlord staff acknowledged internally that the response that had been sent was “unfinished”, it therefore agreed to send a third stage two response.
The landlord issued a third and final stage two response in September 2021. It re-offered its previous compensation award of £100 (£50 for a late stage two response and £50 for its direct debit error), and offered a further £50 for its response being issued three days later than the agreed extension date.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint – and its response at stage two in particular – was not in line with its own complaints policy as it significantly departed from its prescribed 20 working day response time and sent three responses at stage two. It was also not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which states that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest opportunity, having assessed what evidence is needed to fully consider the issues, what outcome would resolve the matter for the resident and whether there are any urgent actions required.
The issuing of three stage two responses indicates that the landlord did not have all the information necessary needed in order to reach a sound conclusion, resulting in decisions being sent “unfinished”. It is unclear why the landlord handled the complaint in the manner that it did. However, it is noted from the landlord’s internal communication that there had been a lack of communication between its staff members, which complicated the matter.
After the final stage two response was issued, the resident asked the landlord to clarify its compensation offer. The landlord confirmed to the resident and this Service that the total award of compensation was £100 and not £150 which was implied in its final stage two response.
The landlord’s handling of Complaint B at stage two of its process was confusing and not in line with its policy. The landlord went some way to acknowledge this, as detailed above. However, we have made a further order aimed at ensuring that the landlord reviews its complaint handling practices so that similar errors are not made in the future.
As detailed above, the resident informed the landlord that due to the lifts being out of service, and having to use the stairs, it had been necessary for her to undergo physiotherapy. The resident was seeking reimbursement of the associated costs. In response,the landlord advised her that it would not reimbursefor “consequential loss”. The landlord’s response was not appropriate. In the circumstances,it would have been reasonablefor the landlord to provide the resident with information on how to make a personal injury claim via its insurer. That it did not was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles set out the approach to providing remedies. The three principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. From the evidence available, the landlord has not demonstrated that through its complaints process, it had learnt from previous lessons. The same failings identified by the landlord in its complaint handling of Complaint A reoccurred in Complaint B. The Ombudsman has therefore made orders aimed at putting things right with the resident, and for the landlord to review its internal processes to mitigate similar failings happening again.

The landlord’s complaints policy

At the end of the complaints procedure, the resident was appropriately directed to contact this Service after a period of eight weeks or immediately contact a Designated Person (DP) if she remained dissatisfied with the complaint outcome. This guidance reflected the Localism Act 2022 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme in place at the time.
On 1 October 2022, the Scheme was updated to reflect a change in the law. The revised Scheme removed the democratic filter requirement, meaning that residents no longer need to contact a DP or wait eight weeks before referring their complaint to the Ombudsman; they may refer complaints directly.
The landlord’s complaints policy was last reviewed on 3 October 2022, following these changes. It includes guidance on referring a complaint to a DP and does not explicitly state that a resident may refer their complaint directly to this Service without the involvement of a DP. An order has been made to the landlord to review its complaints policy so that it fully reflects the current Scheme.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53c of the scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the residents reports of issues with the communal aerial.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the administration of the service charge account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that it had offset compensation payments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:

a. The resident’s reports about the lifts breaking down.

b. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s reports of issues with the communal aerial and the impact on her Sky services. In its response to Complaint A, it acknowledged the time and trouble taken by the resident to resolve the issue and provided reasonable redress in the circumstances. It took reasonable steps in Complaint B, to confirm the aerial was operating effectively and confirmed in that the Sky box was faulty, which it had no responsibility to maintain.
The landlord recognised that it had made a mistake in not updating the resident’s direct debit. It sought to rectify the issue as soon as it was made aware and offered the resident £50 for its failing. The landlord did not go far enough in redressing the resident for the time and trouble taken in her attempt to seek answers from the landlord.
The landlord did not take into account the “general inconvenience” caused to the resident because of the lift breakdowns, even though its compensation policy states that it can and this would have been reasonable in the circumstances. The landlord failed to acknowledge that both lifts were out of service or unavailable to be used during periods, and failed to acknowledge the impact this caused to the resident. In addition, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident on how to make a claim for the reported injury, as well as offering compensation for the inconvenience caused during times of lift breakdowns.
The landlord adhered to its compensation policy when offsetting the compensation payment against arrears on the resident’s service charge account.
The landlord’s complaints handling was poor, departing from its policy in both Complaint A and B. The landlord failed to appropriately respond within its published timescales, and its handling of the complaint was the cause of confusion and further inconvenience to the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. Pay the resident a total sum of £500 comprised of:
  1. £50 for inconvenience caused by the error in updating the direct debit, as previously offered.
  2. £50 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused in having to seek clarification from the landlord as to why the direct debit was not updated.
  3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the lift breakdowns.
  4. £350 for the time and trouble caused for the failings identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within six weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:

a. Review its service charge account management, as suggested it would do within its response to Complaint A. In reviewing, the landlord should put measures in place to mitigate the risk of direct debit errors occurring in future. The landlord should provide this Service with the outcome of its review, including timeframe for any identified actions.

b. Review the failings identified within the report relating to its complaint handling. The landlord should then:

Review its handling of complaints in relation to its “early resolution” approach. Consideration should be given to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Review its complaints policy (and associated literature, including referral paragraphs at the end of complaint responses) with consideration to the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, specifically a resident’s right to refer a complaint directly to the Ombudsman for investigation.
Ensure that complaint handling staff are confident in the application of its complaints policy and approach and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should confirm the outcome of its review to this Service in writing (also within six weeks), including actions it plans to take or has taken as a result of the review.

Recommendations

Consider the Ombudsman’s guidance on offsetting arrears, particularly in cases where the arrears are disputed and/or are the subject of the complaint. This is available on the Housing Ombudsman website. Remedies: Offsetting and the Ombudsman’s approach – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)