One Housing Group Limited (202203260)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203260

One Housing Group Limited

15 October 2022


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 repair issues to the bin chute.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a block of flats.
  2. On 20 May 2020, the resident initially reported that the bin chute became regularly blocked, which caused a smell due to the build-up of waste. He requested a large bin chute be installed, similar to on other floors in the block. The landlord attended on 21 May 2020 to complete a repair. The resident subsequently regularly reported similar repair issues, which the landlord resolved.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 31 October 2021 as he said he had reported issues with the bin chute on numerous occasions and requested a larger bin chute to resolve the ongoing issues with blockages. He added that the bin lid was heavy with no screws, so posed a safety concern. He also stated he often had to remove his neighbours’ rubbish from the chute. The resident requested a partial service charge refund for waste management as he said the service was unavailable to him.
  4. In its complaint response, the landlord said it had resolved the issues with the bin chute on each occasion the resident had reported issues, in line with its repair process. It stated a repair had been raised to repair the bin chute door, and it was monitoring why the screws were being removed on a regular basis. It explained the bin chute was a standard design and changing it would have wider implications. It acknowledged the time taken for the resident to report the issues and assist other residents in removing rubbish, and offered him £100 compensation. It stated that service charges related to the costs incurred by the landlord so it was unable to offer a partial refund.
  5. In his complaint to this Service, the resident said he remained dissatisfied with the compensation offered by the landlord as he had reported the bin chute as faulty numerous times and it often took months to resolve. He also wanted the landlord to install a lighter bin lid. 

Assessment and findings

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the common parts of the building, including rubbish chutes. As such, when the resident reports such issues, the landlord is responsible for completing any required repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs will be attended within 24 hours and routine repairs will be completed within 28 working days.
  2. The landlord responded to the majority of the resident’s reports of the faulty bin chute within its repair timeframe, often the next working day. As such, it adhered to its repair responsibilities. On occasions when it took longer to repair the blockage, although still in line with the repair timeframes, it was due to follow-on work with two contractors being required, which is an appropriate reason for a delay.
  3. It was appropriate that the landlord implemented interim measures while the bin chute was awaiting repair. It signposted the resident to use the bin chute on alternative floors and said that it would monitor the area and arrange removal of any rubbish left by residents. While it is acknowledged that the repair issues would have caused inconvenience to the resident, ultimately, he did have access to the service.
  4. In its stage two response on 24 December 2021, the landlord advised that it would complete outstanding repairs to the bin chute door, however the resident did not confirm the work was completed until 30 March 2022. As a result, the landlord exceeded its repair timeframe and it did not provide any appropriate reasons for the delay. Furthermore, the repair records show that the repair was not raised until 22 February 2022. The landlord did not keep the resident updated on the progress of the works, which led him to chase the repair on several occasions. The landlord advised the resident on 18 January 2022 that it would assess increasing the compensation awarded, however, there is no evidence to suggest that it did, despite the resident chasing the landlord once the work had been completed. As such, this element of the complaint remains unresolved.
  5. In his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to install a bigger bin chute, as it was regularly blocked and the landlord explained that it would be unable to. It was reasonable that the landlord said the changes suggested by the resident would have had “wider implications” as any changes to the size of the bin chute would impact the structure of the building. It would also be considered an improvement, which the landlord would not be obliged to complete. However, it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide further information regarding the reasons it was unable make changes to the bin chute, in order to better manage the resident’s expectations. The landlord also advised that it was unable to remove the chute door due to safety reasons.
  6. Although the changes to the bin chute were determined to be unfeasible, the landlord would be expected to assess the cause of the repeated repair issues and implement any identified solutions. The landlord had identified the cause of several blockages as residents disposing of large items in the bin chute. As a result, it was reasonable that the landlord wrote a letter to all residents on 27 October 2021, outlining their responsibilities regarding disposing of waste. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken this action earlier, considering the resident had been reporting blockages for over a year. It was also reasonable that the landlord advised the resident in its complaint response that it could not be held accountable for the actions of other residents, but it would respond in line with its repair obligations when issues were reported.
  7. In his complaint to the landlord, the resident requested a partial service charge refund, as he did not think he was receiving the service for waste management. The tenancy agreement states that the service charge covers all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord including repair, management, maintenance and provision of services. The service charge is a fixed charge, so it was reasonable that the landlord explained that as the service charge related to costs it had incurred, it was unable to reduce it. Ultimately, the landlord was still providing the waste management service as the resident still had access to a bin and the landlord had offered alternative options when the bin chute on his floor was out of service. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord did not offer a refund for the service charge.
  8. Overall, although it is clear that the repair issues would have caused inconvenience to the resident, the landlord largely acted in line with its repair timeframes to repair the bin chute. It also took steps to prevent future issues and limit the impact on the resident by offering alternative options for disposing of waste. However, the landlord has not remedied its failing to act in accordance with its repairs policy to complete repairs to the bin chute door following the completion of the complaints process.
  9. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, compensation of £50-£100 is appropriate in cases where the landlord has not appropriately acknowledged its failings and fully put them right. In this case, although the landlord acknowledged the time taken for the resident to report the repair issues and assist other residents to remove rubbish, it failed to demonstrate that it had assessed offering additional compensation for the delays in completing the repairs following completion of the complaints process. This was despite stating that it would to the resident, and him subsequently pursuing the issue. As such, the landlord should pay the resident an additional £100 compensation.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues to the bin chute.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. That within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
    1. Pay the resident the £100 compensation it offered in its complaint response, if it has not done so already.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £100 compensation, in light of the additional failings identified in this report.
    3. Provide proof of this payment to this Service.