Places for People Group Limited (202117853)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117853

Places for People Homes Limited

31 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. the management of the resident’s property;
2. the resident’s reports of snagging issues when she moved to the property.

Jurisdiction

1. 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.
2. After the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, the resident raised a further issue about the roofing. This will not be considered as part of the Ombudsman’s current investigation. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident can raise these issues as a new complaint to the landlord and she may be able to refer this new complaint to the Ombudsman for investigation if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

2. The resident moved into her property as a shared ownership leaseholder, as part of a shared ownership scheme run by the landlord, in March 2020.
3. On 6 May 2021, the resident emailed the landlord’s management company with a query about extending the patio in her garden. The resident chased a response on two occasions before the management company contacted the landlord asking that it respond to the resident. The management company believed her query fell within the landlord’s remit. On 27 May 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to say that the property is managed by the management company, and so it had passed her query back.
4. On 31 May 2021, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated that neither the landlord nor the management company were accepting responsibility for the management of her property and were giving her contradictory information. She asked for confirmation of the remit of each organisation.
5. On 16 June 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It apologised and confirmed that the management company does not have a property manager because it does not provide on-site services such as cleaning, being responsible for administering rent and insurance only. It confirmed that the management of the property’s lease is the landlord’s responsibility and gave the resident a named contact for queries. It advised her query about the patio extension was now with this named contact as it would be for the landlord to grant approval for this request. A £25 gift voucher was offered as apology for causing the resident confusion.
6. On 18 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for her complaint to be reviewed, as she did not feel the response addressed all of the issues she had raised. These were confirmed by email on 18 July 2021 and included several outstanding snagging repairs, and lack of welcome pack or property handover when she moved to the property. On 30 July 2021, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It apologised for the confusion, and the distress and inconvenience caused by failing to respond in a timely manner. It offered £150 financial compensation, comprised of £100 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for lack of communication.
7. Following further communication with the resident, on 25 August 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint. It confirmed the resident’s named contact with it. It confirmed the management company was responsible for the management and collection of service charges. It apologised for the confusion caused over the patio extension request but confirmed it had granted the necessary permission for this. It said it had investigated the issue with the welcome pack and had no reason to think it had not been provided. It gave an update on the outstanding snagging issues and apologised that the response hadn’t come sooner. It re-offered the £150 compensation.
8. An email from the resident to the landlord on 25 October 2021 indicated that issues from the complaint remained outstanding. Snagging issues were unresolved, particularly with the patio door. The resident stated that the landlord must have fabricated its statement that a scratch on the patio door had been caused by the resident’s wedding ring, as she was neither married nor wearing a wedding ring. She stated she had repeatedly advised that she had not received a welcome pack or a handover when she moved into the property. A welcome letter had been received from the management company after four months of emails and phone calls requesting one.
9. The resident referred her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service as she felt her complaint had not been resolved by the landlord or taken seriously.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. There are multiple parties involved in this complaint, including the developer which built the property, the management company and the landlord. This investigation has focused on the actions of the landlord, as it is the freeholder for the property and the member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It also considers the landlord’s responsibility for the actions of those parties acting as its agents for delivering services on its behalf.

The landlord’s handling of the management of the resident’s home

11. Much of the resident’s complaint is centred around the confusion experienced over which organisation was managing her home, and what functions each organisation performed. On 6 May 2021, the resident sent an enquiry seeking permission to extend her patio. It is clear from the subsequent internal emails seen by this Service that this confusion also extended through both the landlord and the management company. The query was passed back and forth with neither organisation initially accepting responsibility. The resident was unable to get her query answered in a reasonable timescale and was given different information by each organisation.
12. The landlord continued to give the resident conflicting information concerning the patio extension. In its stage two complaint response on 30 July 2021, the landlord confirmed that it permitted the patio extension. It stated this had been addressed at stage one of the complaint procedure, and that the management company was confirmed as only collecting funds for the service charge. However, a week after the stage two response, the management company emailed the resident. It confirmed it managed her property and was unable to permit her to carry out the patio extension due to the terms of the lease. The final complaint response from the landlord, three weeks later, told her again that permission had been granted. This undoubtedly was frustrating for the resident, three months after sending her original query. This conflicting information put the resident at risk of making a financial investment in her property without the appropriate permissions, with the associated consequences of such an investment.
13. The resident stated that she had received no communication about who managed which part of the property or lease since moving in in April 2020. She stated she had not received a welcome pack or a new build property handover. She only received information about how and when to pay service charges five months after moving in, following multiple attempts to get this information. This Service has seen a copy of the resident’s rent statement, with the first payment made five months after the resident moved in. The resident also stated that she had been told that her property was still registered as empty on both the landlord and the management company’s system four months after moving in. She had only received one response from the named contact managing her property in 15 months. Missed invoicing had resulted in the resident being charged increased rent/insurance.
14. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord did not deny these statements and was unable to explain why these errors had happened. It promised to learn from the resident’s complaint. However, in the final complaint response issued on 25 August 2021, the landlord stated that there was no reason to believe that the welcome letter and handover pack had not been issued to the resident, although it admitted it had no evidence that it had been. This Service considers that the resident stating she has not received certain documents at least gives rise to a ‘reason to believe’ that she has not received those documents. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the resident should have been given the benefit of the doubt, and the requested documents should have been issued immediately. It is unclear whether the landlord continued to feel that learning opportunities were present, as it had initially indicated in its complaint response.
15. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that the management company acting on behalf of itself is a subsidiary of its group and was instructed to provide rent collection services in respect of the resident’s property. The management fee is payable in respect of the management of the shared ownership aspect, i.e. the collection of rent and insurance. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure its functions and obligations as a landlord and shared owner are appropriately met, whether that be directly, or via a subsidiary or contractor. The fact that staff at both organisations seemed unaware of what functions they were meant to be performing, to the detriment of residents, demonstrates significant failure by the landlord.
16. It is clear from the evidence provided that the resident had to spend a lot of time seeking out answers to fundamental questions that the landlord should have been able to answer with ease. That the landlord often does not appear to be in a position to give important information to the resident, nor know where to find answers to her questions internally, is concerning. An uncertain situation had been created for the resident, and a high degree of distress and inconvenience caused considering she had entered into a contract with the landlord of significant financial value.
17. These issues highlighted by the resident point to a lack of organisation within the landlord’s operations, with effects serious enough to prevent the resident from meeting her obligations as a leaseholder and from receiving the services she was entitled to. Commentary seen in internal landlord emails shows that staff recognised that they were confused “let alone the new customer”. It was also discussed that it had no live tenancy records on its systems.
18. The resident informed this Service that she paid a year’s management fee upfront when she moved into the property. Her enquiry about the patio extension came just over a year later. The resident feels that a refund of her management fee would be appropriate considering she doesn’t feel she was receiving a management service. It is clear that over a year after moving in, the landlord and the management company seemed confused about their responsibilities. The management company had set up the provision for the resident to pay her service charge after a few months, so there wasn’t a total absence of service provision. However, this Service would agree that the reimbursement of one year’s management fee would be appropriate in these circumstances.
19. The resident has had to give a considerable amount of time to getting straightforward issues resolved and has had a poor experience since buying her first property. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards of £250 to £700 may adequately remedy experiences where there has been maladministration, but no permanent impact on the resident. In addition to the refund of the management fee, an award of £400 to remedy distress and inconvenience in this case recognises that the resident was continually misdirected, given conflicting information and repeatedly had to chase the landlord to provide a basic service over a period of many months.  

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s snagging issues

20. Stage one of the landlord’s complaint process focused almost entirely on the handling of the resident’s request to extend her patio. After receiving the resident’s complaint escalation request, the landlord agreed on 19 July 2021 to include further issues in the stage two investigation. These were responded to at stage two and the landlord also issued a final response on 25 August 2021. The issues included seven snagging issues which the resident had identified since moving into her home in April 2020.
21. The resident has indicated that the snags were brought to the landlord’s attention before the discussions in July 2021 that prompted it to include them in its stage two response. She has provided emails to this Service which show that a full snagging list was sent to the landlord on 6 May 2021, the same day she made her initial query about the patio extension. This list was acknowledged on 17 May 2021, with a job number quoted. Therefore, there is evidence that the landlord was aware of the snagging issues as of 6 May 2021 and it should have responded to these issues sooner.
22. The resident stated that she had not been given information on who to report snagging issues to. She stated that any attempt to report them had resulted in her being signposted elsewhere. She said she had spent 15 months contacting one named representative and had received only one response from them. The stage two response accepted that due to the confusion caused to the resident about her property’s management, snagging issues hadn’t been reported to the building developer on time. It could not make the building developer go beyond its contractual obligations. However, to remedy the confusion caused, the landlord would assume responsibility for some outstanding snags. It stated that the building developer would attend to the remaining ones.
23. The final complaint response gave an update on the snagging issues following further contact from the resident. The landlord’s position was that some of the issues had still not been brought to the building developer’s attention. However, the stage two response had stated that the landlord would take responsibility for some defects and the building developer had agreed to attend to the remaining ones. It did not indicate that the resident needed to take further action to contact the building developer. Therefore, it is not clear why the final response issued almost a month later indicated that the building developer was unaware of certain defects. The landlord provided a telephone number so the resident could contact the building developer, which it had not done previously. This lack of consistency would have added to the resident’s confusion over who to contact about the issues affecting her property.
24. The landlord also indicated in the final complaint response that some snags were low-level problems that should be resolved by the resident. Examples include fence staining that would be cosmetic only, or a whistling boiler that would be likely to be easily resolved during an annual service check. The resident was advised how to resolve some snags herself, or how to report snags to the correct place, or that some had been now completed. This Service has seen the welcome pack that the resident states she did not receive. This document contained comprehensive information about how to report defects, but also gave guidance on how to resolve low-level issues independently. It is perhaps the case that had the resident received this information, the issues with the defects would not have persisted for as long as they did. However, this Service would agree that the impact or detriment from these particular snags not being immediately resolved was likely to be relatively low.
25. The resident was particularly unhappy with the landlord’s suggestion in its final complaint response that the cause of the scratch on her patio door had been the resident’s wedding ring. The resident has stated that she is neither married nor wears a ring. She felt this suggestion represented a fabrication, and one she had previously denied during a telephone call with the landlord. This Service cannot make a determination on what was said during the phone call as we have not heard a recording of the call. However, the final complaint response clearly attributes a snag to a “wedding ring” that does not exist. The landlord did not follow this up with any offer of remedy, and it did not assume responsibility for the scratched patio door glass. The basis for the landlord’s conclusion that it is not responsible for putting right this snagging issue is not clear and this is likely to have only added to the resident’s existing frustrations. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Ombudsman can only conclude that the landlord is responsible for fixing the scratch on the door.
26. The resident has confirmed to this Service that since her complaint, she has successfully stair–cased to full ownership of her property, and therefore no longer has a contractual relationship with the landlord. There remains one outstanding snagging issue with the lawn she is concerned will not be resolved as a result of the fact that she is no longer a shared-ownership leaseholder of the landlord. This Service does not consider it fair and right in the circumstances that the landlord does not rectify this snagging issue because the resident’s circumstances have changed. The fact remains that the issue likely should have been resolved in a reasonable timeframe and it was not. The fact the resident’s status has now changed doesn’t absolve the landlord of the responsibility to put things right.
27. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation of £150 to recognise the delay in the snags being resolved. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards of £50 to £250 may go some way to redress a service failure where the resident has experienced delay of relatively short duration. The snags were not issues of a urgent nature and the impact of them not being resolved immediately was not likely to have been significant on the resident’s daily use of her home. However, there was some level of inconvenience caused by delays and misinformation around resolving these issues, so some compensation is due in view of this.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the management of the resident’s property.
29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s snagging issues.

Orders

30. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £682 financial compensation, comprised of:
    1. £132 reimbursement of the first year’s management fee;
    2. £400 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in accessing basic services from the landlord;
    3. £150 in recognition of the delays experienced by the resident in getting the snagging issues resolved.
31. The landlord is ordered to review this case and provide this Service with information about steps it has taken to avoid its new shared ownership customers experiencing similarly poor levels of service from the outset of their lease.
32. The landlord is ordered to contact the resident and work to resolve the outstanding snagging issue with the lawn, if the issue is something the landlord would have resolved while the resident had a shared ownership lease with it.
33. The landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a copy of the welcome pack (home maintenance guide), which has been provided to this Service as part of its investigation.
34. The landlord should show evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this determination.