Orbit Group Limited (202220757)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220757

Orbit Group Limited

29 February 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Request for information relating to her service charge for grounds maintenance.
2. Request for evidence of actual expenditure relating to her service charge.
3. Complaint.

Background

The resident is a joint leaseholder of the landlord, who is a Housing Association. The lease began on 28 May 2021. The landlord has no record of vulnerabilities for the resident.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a block. There is a play park opposite and communal green areas immediately adjacent to the block. The property is situated on a large estate that was still being developed at the time of the complaint. The landlord owns the block and land immediately around it, it does not own the play park. There are restrictive covenants within the transfer of land which requires a contribution to the estate charge for the development. The resident’s lease sets out the requirements for the payment of service charge and the estate charge. A management company is in place to oversee estate services on behalf of the developer.
In February 2022 the resident contacted the landlord about grounds maintenance that was included in her service charge but was not being carried out. The subsequent correspondence focussed on the lack of maintenance of the play park and a communal grass area. The resident was in regular contact with the landlord throughout 2022. During that time it did not give a definitive answer as to who owned the land or who was responsible for its maintenance. It was therefore unable to provide information on the breakdown of the service charge.
On 10 May 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to make a complaint about her service charge including grounds maintenance which was not being carried out. The landlord provided an informal complaint response on 28 July. It upheld the complaint because the areas had not been fully maintained. It said the complaint would be closed. The resident was dissatisfied because she was seeking a refund. She also wanted an action plan to ensure something similar did not reoccur. The landlord replied on 29 July to ask if she would like to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident confirmed this was the case in her email of 2 August.
The landlord provided a formal stage 1 complaint response (A) on 25 November 2022, as follows:
1. It acknowledged little grounds maintenance had been carried out on estate generally for “several months.”
2. It said the situation was complicated because 3 parties maintained the areas. This included the local authority, management company, landlord and developer. The developer was responsible for the play park.
3. It said the resident would need to contact the local authority about an area of land it identified as belonging to them.
4. It said the resident paid charges to the management company. It could not consider refunding those charges because they were for a service the landlord did not provide.
5. It said its service charge team considered the service charge was for grounds maintenance. The landlord said it was “not clear exactly what the resident was being charged for.” It suggested the resident contact the management company to ask them directly what she was paying them for.
6. The complaint was partially upheld.
On 29 November 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say she remained dissatisfied. She said that the stage 1 complaint was delayed and contained incorrect information. The landlord treated this as a new complaint and raised a second, separate, stage 1 complaint. It issued its complaint response (B) on 5 December, as follows:
1. It received the stage 1 complaint on 5 July 2022 which was investigated as an informal complaint.
2. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 1 because she felt it should reduce service charge for grounds maintenance. The landlord acknowledged her request on 8 August 2022.
3. It had taken 3 months for it to collate internal records in order to provide its complaint response.
4. It could not conclude that the information it gave previously was wrong. It was reliant on the developer and management company to provide information on what they were responsible for.
5. It acknowledged that the resident was struggling to get answers from the management company. As a “gesture of goodwill” it contacted them on her behalf.
6. The management company had advised that the play park was the responsibility of the local authority.
7. The complaint was partially upheld. It issued £70 for the delay in providing stage 1 response and for service charge queries. It also issued £70 for frustration and inconvenience caused by its failings and the resident having to chase for a response.
On 5 December 2022 the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. However, the landlord initially declined to carry out the complaint review. Following intervention from this Service the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 10 March 2023, as follows:
1. The play park was the responsibility of the management company. It had contacted them to ask why it had not been maintained.
2. It provided a detailed breakdown of service charges on 2 March.
3. It would provide evidence of expenditure once the end of year accounts were finalised.
4. The management company’s service charge was for provision of all services within their budget, including elements of maintaining park areas. However, it was not able to confirm how much.
5. In the interests of resolving the complaint it applied a 50% credit of the resident’s share of the management fee which amounted to £54.50.
6. It apologised that the resident had to make contact on “numerous occasions for an update.”
7. Although the main complaint related to areas it was not responsible for, it did not act as quickly as it could have done to raise concerns with the management company on the resident’s behalf.
8. It should also have been clearer about who was responsible for maintaining which part of the estate.
9. The complaint was upheld and compensation of £150 was awarded for poor complaint handling in addition to the £54.50 credit for the management fee This was in addition to the £140 compensation offered at stage 1, bringing the total to £344.50.
At the time of its final complaint response of 10 March 2023 the landlord remained unable to resolve the issue of ownership and maintenance. The resident contacted this Service on 10 March 2023 because she was dissatisfied that the landlord had not resolved the issue about grounds maintenance. She was also dissatisfied because it was unable to confirm what her service charge paid for and had not provided evidence of expenditure. In a phone call to this Service on 16 February 2024 the resident advised that she had never received any evidence of actual expenditure.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations policies and procedures

Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant act 1985 says that within 6 months of receipt of a summary of relevant costs, residents have the right ask the landlord to allow them to inspect receipts, accounts and other documents supporting the summary. Facilities for inspecting the documents should be provided within one month of the request and should be available for a period of 2 months.
The landlord’s service charge procedure says that it aims to deliver quality, affordable, value for money services to all its customers (residents, leaseholders, shared owners, freeholders and licensees).
The landlord’s service charge procedure says that after the closure of the finance ledgers at year end, it will prepare the apportionment file so that year-end and budget statements can be issued to customers.
Its complaint policy dated April 2021 says it:
1. Will manage all complaints through its 2 stage complaints process, stage 1 and stage 2.
2. Will acknowledge all complaints within 3 working days and aim to respond within 10 working days.
Its complaints policy dated September 2022 says:
1. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 10 working days from acknowledgement. It may extend the timescale by a further 10 working days, if it needs longer it will contact the resident.
2. Customers have the right to request a review if all or any part of the complaint is not resolved to the customers satisfaction at stage 1.
3. It will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and respond within 20 working days. If it needs longer it will contact the resident to say when they can expect a response.
4. In the event that it refuses to review a complaint the customer relations operations lead will write to the customer to advise of this and the reasons.

Service charge for grounds maintenance

There was confusion initially around which specific areas were not being maintained. This was because different areas came under the responsibility of different agencies, including third parties. In an email to the resident of 22 July 2022 the landlord sought to confirm that the estate manager had phoned her on 19 July as promised, she replied to say she had not. In its complaint response of 28 July the landlord appropriately apologised for the failure.
The landlord’s internal file note of 25 August 2022 referred to “very much being sent in circles” in its efforts to establish who was responsible for grounds maintenance in each area. This was reflected in its stage 1 complaint (A) response of 25 November 2022 when it described the situation as “complicated.” It said the play park was the responsibility of the developer and that an area of land highlighted by the resident belonged to the local authority. The landlord signposted the resident to contact the local authority regarding the overgrown piece of land and the management company to establish what she was paying them for.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with management companies, March 2022, states that landlords should be proactive in pursuing management companies and freeholders to discharge their responsibilities for the benefit of their residents. Landlords should take ownership for getting clear updates and action from management companies. Failure to do so is unsatisfactory. The management company had no contractual relationship with the resident and was under no obligation to engage with her. Therefore, it was unreasonable of the landlord to put the onus on the resident to carry out her enquiry.
The resident raised the same point in her email to the landlord of 30 November 2022. The landlord did then appropriately review the information it held on file. In an internal email dated 5 December it confirmed the developer was responsible for the play park.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint (B) response of 5 December once again referred to the complexity of the situation. It was reasonable that the officer investigating the initial complaint had relied on information provided by the relevant teams to provide the response. It did so in good faith, believing the information to be correct.
In its response the landlord confirmed that the play park was the responsibility of the local authority, not the developer as it had initially advised on 25 November 2022. Once the landlord realised that contradictory information was being provided by third parties it should reasonably have taken the lead in contacting the management company and other third parties to clarify matters. This would have demonstrated to the resident that it was committed to putting things right. Instead, it inappropriately referred to its contact with the management company on her behalf as a “gesture of goodwill.”
Several emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord on 5 and 6 December 2022. The resident expressed her frustration once again that the landlord had put the onus on her to resolve the issues with the management company who had denied responsibility for the play park. In its email of 5 December the landlord said “I acknowledge that you are of the view that we should take the matter up with the management company however I am unable to agree with that.”
In a further email dated 5 December it said “in relation to this matter you are not the ‘middle man’ stuck between 2 organisations, you are the customer of the management company. If you have a problem with the service that they are providing or not providing, your complaint is with them and not us.”
The landlord’s response lacked respect and empathy and is evidence that the landlord misunderstood the relationship between the resident and management company. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report highlights that while the context for providing services can be challenging for landlords, it is crucial they do not lose sight of the landlord-resident relationship. It is also evidence that the landlord lost sight of the “human element of these issues and the immense frustration residents will feel” as set out in the report.
An order has been made to reflect the section of the spotlight report which refers to staff training and the need to understand, and explain, the landlord’s responsibilities when it comes to its relationship with management companies.
Despite the complaint officer’s position, on 6 December 2022 the new homes officer emailed the management company. This was to try to clarify matters in relation to the play park and overgrown area of land because the local authority advised they were not responsible. The management company replied on 8 December to confirm that was not the case, and that the local authority were responsible. In her email to the landlord on 8 December the resident expressed her ongoing frustration. The management company had advised her that the landlord should be the first port of call for queries because it paid the management fee from her service charge. This compounded the distress caused by the landlord’s reluctance to escalate her complaint.
The evidence shows that the landlord continued to try to obtain a plan from the management company showing which areas it was responsible for, confirmed in its email to the resident on 2 March 2023. On 8 March the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that the management company was responsible for the play park. Furthermore, it said it had made contact to establish what was going on. There is no evidence that it received a response or that it followed up with the management company which was inappropriate.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 10 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that the management company was responsible for the play park. However, it did not know how much of the service charge was apportioned to maintaining the area. This was inappropriate because it did not demonstrate its commitment in its service charge procedure to deliver quality, affordable, value for money services to all its customers. This was because it could not scrutinise charges on behalf of the residents to ensure they provided value for money. It decided to take a broad approach by refunding 50% of the resident’s share of the management fee which was £54.50.
The evidence shows maintenance had not taken place since the resident moved in during May 2021. Therefore it would have been reasonable for the calculation to be applied to 6 months of 2021 and to the whole of 2022. On this basis, the resident would be offered a refund of £27.25 for 2021 and £54.50 for 2022. This brings the total credit to £136.25 for which an order has been made.
The landlord should have been able to tell the resident how much was apportioned, it was inappropriate that it was unable to do so. Residents should be able to hold the professionals that are responsible for the management of their homes to account for ensuring that their complaints are resolved in a timely manner. In turn, landlords should also be able to hold third party freeholders and management companies to account in relation to discharging their responsibilities.
Furthermore, the landlord’s approach was not consistent because its position as set out in its complaint responses was not mirrored by day to day activities carried out by other teams. This caused frustration, confusion and distress to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report states that landlords should be able to demonstrate attempts at effective engagement with the management company to establish the root cause of the issues, develop clear action plans, and ensure that performance is both proactively and robustly monitored. There is evidence that some front line staff were proactive in pursuing the management company. However, when their attempts stalled they did not consider whether further action could be taken to hold the management company to account. For example, the landlord could have considered seeking legal advice and/or contacting the developer. That it did not do so was a failure because the resident was given conflicting information by the landlord and management company, causing confusion and eroding confidence.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration. It made some attempt to put things right by offering to refund 50% of the management fee for 2023. Its stage 1 complaint (B) offered £70 compensation for the delay in providing its complaint response and service charge queries and £70 for detriment caused by its failings and the resident having to chase a response. The landlord does not state how much was apportioned to each. Therefore, this investigation considers it reasonable to conclude £35 was awarded for the delay in resolving the service charge queries and £35 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the same delay. This meant a total of £70 compensation was offered for its failures in its response for service charge queries.
The landlord’s approach to the resident’s service charge query was inconsistent, and at times obstructive and disrespectful. It gave conflicting information to the resident and failed to consider what action it could take to put things right by resolving the matter. It failed to demonstrate that it had learnt from the process and put measures in place to prevent a reoccurrence. There was a lack of transparency about what services were being delivered and how much was charged.
The failures caused distress, inconvenience, frustration, time and trouble to the resident over a 13 month period. At the end of the internal complaints process the substantive issue remained unresolved. Furthermore, the offer of compensation for the detriment caused by the landlord’s failings was not proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
Considering the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been no permanent impact, the failures identified and the lack of resolution the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £600 compensation. It may deduct the £70 it has awarded if this has already been paid.
In its response to this Service on 15 September 2023, 6 months after the internal complaints process was exhausted, the landlord confirmed that the year end accounts provided by the management company for the 2021 financial year did not include costs specific to the play area. Furthermore, the budget set by the management company for 2023 did not include charges for the park area. It was waiting for the management company to finalise its year end accounts for the 2022. If it has not already done so the landlord should consider writing to the resident to set out the position in relation to the service charge for the park for 2021 to 2023.

Evidence of actual expenditure

While making her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process, on 3 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord to provide receipts of actual expenditure. On 8 March the landlord replied to say it could only provide details of actual expenditure once end of year accounts had been finalised. It said the year end statement for 2022 to 2023 should be issued around October 2023. This was reasonable because it was in line with its service charge procedure.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord said it was collating invoices for the previous financial year, 2021 to 2022, which it would send to the resident. The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2023 with a file attached named “invoices and supporting documents.” In an email to this Service on 20 February 2024 the landlord confirmed that this file contained monthly water inspections, gas bills for the landlord’s supply to the block, a fire risk assessment certificate and the statement of anticipated service charge expenditure for 1 January-31 December 2021 and 2022.
In a phone call to this Service on 16 February 2024 the resident advised that she had never received any evidence of actual expenditure. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show otherwise. It failed to demonstrate that it fulfilled its obligations as set out in the Landlord and Tenant act 1985.
Furthermore, by not providing this information to the resident it caused frustration and distress to the resident. This was because her service charge was increasing year on year without her knowing how her money was spent. She was reliant on the landlord obtaining this information from the management company on her behalf and it failed in its obligations to do so.
The landlord’s failure to provide evidence of actual expenditure for years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023 amount to maladministration. The continued lack of transparency around what services were being provided and what was being charged adversely affected the resident. Furthermore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate our dispute resolution principles: be fair, put things right and learning. It has not resolved the complaint be providing the information as requested, it has not attempted to put things right or demonstrated learning from the complaint.
The landlord should have had adequate processes to ensure effective communications and oversight of third parties so it could fulfil its legal obligations to provide information to leaseholders upon request. In line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration, where the impact has not been permanent, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £600.

Complaint handling

The resident raised a complaint on 10 May 2022 which was discussed during an internal email on 14 July. On that same day, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it was collating information and would reply in due course. On 28 July the landlord issued a complaint response in an email, giving the appearance of an informal response.
The landlord’s complaint policy in place at the time said that all complaints would be managed through its 2 stage complaints process. There was no provision for complaints to be dealt with outside of this process therefore its informal complaint response was inappropriate. Section 5.8 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code (the Code) says that all stage 1 complaint responses should include details of how to escalate the matter if the resident remains dissatisfied. It failed to adequately signpost the resident should she wish to escalate her complaint.
Section 4.4 of the Code says that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint but did not set out what it would do to put things right, including setting out steps it would take to provide a resolution to her query. This was inappropriate, causing frustration and distress to the resident.
The response referred to the resident’s complaint dated 5 July 2022. However, evidence provided to this Service suggests the complaint was first raised much earlier, on 10 May, which the landlord inappropriately failed to act on. However, taking 5 July as the date, the response was provided 17 working days later. The complaints policy in place at the time said it aimed to respond within 10 working days therefore it was 7 working days out of time which was inappropriate.
On 29 July 2022 the resident confirmed that she wanted to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. The landlord emailed the resident on 30 July to confirm that it would try to resolve the issues for her and if it could not it would escalate the complaint to stage 2.
Section 5.9 of the Code says that if the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint must be progressed to stage 2. Furthermore, the landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time recognised residents’ rights to request a review of its stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to raise a stage 2 complaint without further delay. That it did not do so was a failure which caused frustration and distress to the resident.
Rather than escalate the complaint to stage 2, the landlord provided a formal stage 1 complaint response (A) on 25 November 2022. This was 82 working days after the resident made her request to escalate. Furthermore, it was 72 working days over the 10 day response time stated in its then complaints policy.
The landlord’s internal records show that by 29 November 2022 the resident raised a complaint about the stage 1 response. The landlord raised and investigated this as a separate stage 1 complaint (B) which was inappropriate. This is because the Code says that if all the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2. Furthermore, the 2 stage process allows any dissatisfaction relating to the stage 1 complaint response to be independently reviewed at stage 2.
The same customer relations officer issued both stage 1 complaint responses, reviewing his own complaint response. This was inappropriate because the resident could not be confident that an impartial review had been undertaken. Furthermore, by not raising a stage 2 complaint at that time the landlord delayed the resident’s ability to move through the complaints process and ultimately access this Service for a resolution.
The stage 1 response (B) was issued on 5 December. It said it had taken 3 months to obtain information from the relevant teams to be able to provide a response. It apologised and acknowledged the detriment caused to the resident. However, it failed to set out what had gone wrong and what it would do differently to prevent similar delays in the future. This would have been appropriate because it would have demonstrated its learning.
On 5 December 2022 the resident again emailed the landlord to request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process. In its reply on the same day the landlord said “I am afraid that I have nothing further that I can add in relation to my recent emails and the letter I provided you setting out my findings.” The landlord’s internal records dated 17 January 2023 acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. During emails to the landlord on 16 and 19 February 2023 the resident stated her wish to escalate her complaint. However, the landlord did not open a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s inaction was inappropriate because its complaints policy said it would not review a complaint if the resident could not provide or explain a reason why they are requesting a review. The evidence shows that the resident clearly and repeatedly explained why she was dissatisfied. The landlord’s position that it would not review the complaint because it disagreed that it was unresolved was inappropriate. Furthermore, its policy says that where it refuses to complete a review of a complaint a senior manager will write to the resident to explain why, and next steps. There is no evidence that such a letter was issued.
The landlord’s response was contrary to section 5.9 of the Code. It also caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident because it delayed her ability to access this Service, having exhausted the internal complaints process. Furthermore, the resident was inconvenience, time and trouble in having to contact this Service for assistance to obtain the landlord’s final response.
On 20 February 2023 we wrote to the landlord to request that it provide a stage 2 complaint response by 27 February. The landlord contacted the resident on the day the response was due. This was inappropriate because it was an apology for not having done something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations. Having advised the resident that it would issue its response on 3 March it was not provided until 10 March. There is no evidence that the landlord provided a further update to the resident to advise her of the ongoing delay which was inappropriate.
In its complaint response of 5 December 2022 the landlord offered £140 compensation comprised of £70 for the delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint and responding to service charge queries. It also offered £70 for detriment caused by its failings and the resident having to chase. The landlord does not state how much was apportioned to each therefore, this investigation considers it reasonable to conclude £35 was awarded for the delay in providing the complaint response and £35 for the detriment caused by the same delay meaning a total of £70 compensation was awarded for complaint handling failures.
The stage 2 response failed to provide a detailed response to the landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s complaint. It provided compensation of £150 for poor complaint handling but failed to explain what had gone wrong, why and what it would do differently to ensure the same thing did not reoccur. It also failed to acknowledge the cumulative failings in its complaint handling and the inconvenience, frustration, distress, time and trouble this caused to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures are summarised below:
1. Failure to raise a complaint on 10 May 2022.
2. Failure to provide an adequate formal stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2022 and provide a resolution.
3. Failure to escalate resident’s complaint to stage 2 following her request on 29 July 2022.
4. Delayed stage 1 complaint response (A) of 25 November 2022.
5. Failure to raise a stage 2 complaint on 29 November 2022 to ensure the stage 1 response was independently reviewed.
6. Failure to escalate resident’s complaint to stage 2 following request on 5 December 2022.
7. Failure to provide stage 2 complaint response by 27 February 2023 following intervention from this Service and failure to fully address the delay.
There have been serious complaint handling failures by the landlord which amount to maladministration. There were a series of failures which delayed the resident’s ability to exhaust the internal complaints process and ultimately seek a resolution via this Service. It is concerning that the landlord’s behaviour was obstructive in both its response to the substantive issue and its complaint handling. The landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/ resident relationship.
The landlord has acknowledged some failures and attempted to put things right. However, it has not gone far enough to address the detriment caused to the resident by its cumulative failures. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate that it has learnt from the process and taken steps to prevent a reoccurrence.
Considering this and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance on maladministration, where there has been a significant impact on the resident, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £800 compensation. The landlord may deduct the £220 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about her service charge for grounds maintenance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for evidence of actual expenditure relating to her service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £2136.25 compensation, comprised of:
1. £136.25 refund of the management fee for services not provided to carry out grounds maintenance of the play park. The landlord may deduct the £54.50 it has offered if this has already been paid.
2. £600 for the frustration, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge query relating to grounds maintenance.
3. £600 for the frustration and distress caused by the landlord’s failure to provide details of actual expenditure of her service charge.
4. £800 for distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £220 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Within 4 weeks of the determination a director or executive officer should apologise to the resident for the failings in this case, setting out what went wrong and what it will do to ensure it does not reoccur. This should be provided in writing or face to face depending on the resident’s wishes.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Carry out staff training, to include the customer relations team, to ensure they understand, and can explain, the landlord’s responsibilities when it comes to its relationship with the management company and/or freeholders for each building. The date and details of the training should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
2. Review the complaint handling failures to identify what went wrong. This should include a review of its response times to stage 1 complaints, ensuring they are measured from the date the complaint is received and not the date it provides its acknowledgement. It should use the review as a basis for staff training which should include:
  1. The importance of providing information in a timely manner to enable a response to be issued within target.
  2. When to raise a formal complaint.
  3. When to escalate complaints to stage 2 of the process.

The date and details of the training should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.

Meet with the management company in order to ensure it has a clear, shared understanding of their legal and contractual responsibilities, including who owns and who is responsible for maintenance of the play park. If the landlord experiences difficulties in arranging a meeting it should consider next steps and develop an action plan to ensure it meets its objectives. The outcome of the meeting, and/or if applicable next steps, should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman also within 8 weeks.
A senior manager should carry out a case review to determine the reason for the delays and failings identified in this report. It should identify what action has/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these in the future. It should focus on the Ombudsman’s recent spotlight report on Attitude, Respect and Rights and how it can take a more human centric approach. The landlord should advise the resident and the Ombudsman of the outcome of this review in writing, also within 8 weeks.