Places for People Group Limited (202128598)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128598

Places for People Group Limited

3 November 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various service charge concerns;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and his husband are shared owners of the property. They took over the lease in January 2021. The lease began in 2013. The property is a third-floor flat in a block. The block is located in a development owned by a third-party (the developer). A managing agent runs the block on the developer’s behalf. The resident’s husband is a wheelchair user and the resident is his carer. For readability, this report refers to the resident throughout.
The original lease agreement shows the landlord is obliged to “maintain, repair, redecorate and renew” the structure and exterior of the block. This includes machinery and plant. It is also obliged to keep the block’s common parts “adequately cleaned and lighted”. The resident is obliged to contribute to the landlord’s expenses through annual service charges.
The lease document confirms there is a chain of landlords in this case. It describes the agreement as an underlease. The “head lessor’s” details are given in schedule 9 of the document. The landlord’s protection provisions, section 5.5, show the landlord is not liable to the leaseholder for any failure or interruption of its repair services that is not attributable to its own neglect or default.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant policy document, effective 23 February 2021, shows it aims to respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

In December 2019, the managing agent wrote to the block’s leaseholders. Its correspondence was a first notification of its intent to complete major lift refurbishment works. It said the notification was prompted by frequent breakdowns and the works were in line with a surveyor’s recommendations. Following this correspondence, there was a significant gap in the case evidence.
On 13 April 2021, the resident emailed the managing agent with the landlord copied in. The subject heading was “window cleaning complaint”. He reported being told that the block’s windows had been cleaned by the managing agent. However, the property’s kitchen window was covered in dust. He attributed its condition to poor workmanship or the window being missed altogether. He also said there was food waste on the windows when the family moved in. At this point, his complaint failed to prompt a formal response from the landlord.
Based on the parties’ correspondence between April and August 2021, the resident subsequently chased the outstanding window cleaning works at least 8 times. The correspondence shows he was repeatedly given appointment dates, by the managing agent, which passed without any completed cleaning. It also shows the landlord failed to respond to a further complaint request during this period. This was on the basis the complaint lay with the managing agent. The below events suggest that, during this period, the resident also encountered issues with the block’s lifts.
On 2 August 2021 the landlord issued a stage 1 response. This was around 4 months after the resident’s initial complaint. It said the complaint was received through the Ombudsman. It failed to acknowledge any complaint handling delays or failures. It also said the landlord was not responsible for any repairs or maintenance to the block, and no communication failures were identified. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The response detailed the relationship between the developer, managing agent and landlord. The main points were:
1. The managing agent carried out all communal services and invoiced the landlord for its share of the costs. The landlord paid the resident’s service charges to the agent on his behalf.
2. The landlord was not responsible for the lifts. Its obligation was to signpost the resident to the managing agent and support any queries he had with it.
3. A consultation was ongoing in relation to the lifts. In the meantime, the managing agent could only respond to any lift repairs raised.
4. It was reasonable to direct the resident’s window cleaning concerns to the managing agent. Though it understood his frustration, the landlord was unable to investigate them formally.
5. The landlord had requested a window cleaning schedule covering the last 12 months. It would use the information to assist the resident with the managing agent.
6. Repeatedly signposting the resident to the managing agent was not a service failure on the landlord’s part.
The parties’ correspondence confirms the property’s windows were ultimately cleaned on 18 August 2021. Apart from a brief interaction between the resident and the managing agent about lifts in early December 2021, little information was seen about events until March 2022. From the evidence both parties provided, there was no indication the resident escalated his 2021 complaint following the landlord’s stage 1 response.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 March 2022. He said there had been “severe issues” with its services since he moved in. He attributed this to the managing agent’s lack of attention and its failure to complete timely repairs. Since he paid service charges to the landlord, he said it should take action and refund charges where no service was provided. The resident stressed his husband was a wheelchair user. His main points were:
1. Window cleaning issues from 2021 were unresolved. The resident was previously told to contact the managing agent for a refund. He was subsequently referred back again on the basis his charges were paid directly to the landlord. Ultimately, a refund was still outstanding.
2. Of the block’s 2 lifts, one was almost always unavailable due to breakdowns. The second lift was usually available, but it was also faulty on occasion. The resident’s husband previously waited in the lobby for 2 hours due to a lack of lifts. Following the resident’s report of a recent lift issue, no action was taken.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms the following events occurred the same day:
1. The landlord told the resident it was aware of his concerns from previous complaints. It said his comments were forwarded to the managing agent. Further, it would pass on any refunds it received for a lack of services.
2. The landlord asked the managing agent to respond. It said it was unable to comment on the service the resident was receiving since it was not providing it. Further, it could only issue refunds when the managing agent issued them to the landlord.
On 31 March 2022 the resident raised a formal complaint. His email developed his previous concerns. He said repairs to the block were left “unattended for months”. Further, he previously demonstrated to the block’s management that windows had not been cleaned. He reported receiving a letter advising his share of upcoming lift refurbishment works was around £1,800. He said the landlord’s negligent failure to provide services or maintain the block necessitated the works, so it should bear the cost. He asked the landlord to amend his direct debit so his rent and service charge payments were separate.
The landlord’s correspondence confirms the following events occurred on 4 April 2022:
1. The landlord raised the situation internally. It said the resident was previously told his concerns related to the managing agent’s service. Further, in relation to the lift works, he was signposted to the relevant clauses in his lease agreement and advised to seek legal advice. The landlord eventually decided to respond to the complaint.
2. The resident was sent a complaint acknowledgement. It asked whether he had raised a complaint with the managing agent.
3. The resident replied he had no contract with the managing agent. He said wanted to split his direct debit and dispute the service charge element. He reiterated he was being unfairly charged for the landlord’s failure to maintain the lift.
The managing agent updated the landlord the next day. It said it was unable to offer any compensation because there were no missed window cleaning appointments. Instead, the cleaners were recalled as additional works were needed to remove food waste. Further, the block’s lifts were being serviced and inspected as required. However, many of their components were obsolete which made them expensive and difficult to obtain. It also said there was an ongoing consultation to fully refurbish a lift and vandalism had been a problem.
On 6 April 2022 the landlord issued the resident another acknowledgment. It said it would respond to the complaint by 21 April 2022. Around a week later, it exchanged emails with the managing agent. With reference to the resident’s 2021 window cleaning complaint, it asked whether historic missed visits had been taken into account. The managing agent reiterated the information around food waste.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord issued another stage 1 response. This was around 13 working days after the resident’s formal complaint. It addressed services not provided, lift refurbishment costs and the resident’s request for a split direct debit. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. This was broadly because no failures were identified in relation to the managing agent’s service. The main points were:
1. In line with its August 2021 complaint response, lift issues were beyond the landlord’s control. Since parts were obsolete, the managing agent decided the lifts were beyond repair. It initiated a consultation process which was carried out correctly. It had advised there was only one occasion where both lifts were out of service, and the incident lasted around 2 hours.
2. Overall, the managing agent had attempted repairs and completed a consultation process to resolve matters. The refurbishment works were necessary to ensure the lift was in working order could be accessed by the block’s residents. The resident was apportioned a share of the costs in line with the lease agreement. He should seek legal advice if he disputed his obligations.
3. The landlord’s August 2021 complaint response had also addressed window cleaning. The managing agent previously advised it would issue a refund for any missed visits (this was not mentioned in the landlord’s previous response). The relevant year-end accounts were due in September 2022. The landlord would ensure any relevant adjustments were made accordingly.
4. The managing agent and an external auditor reviewed service costs annually. Where actual figures were less than estimated expenditure, the managing agent would refund the landlord. This refund would be passed on to leaseholders. Alternatively, when expenses exceeded predictions, the landlord could request additional funds from its leaseholders.
5. In any case, leaseholders could review cost information by requesting a breakdown of charges. The landlord was unable to issue any refunds without a corresponding refund from the managing agent. It would continue to liaise with the agent about the resident’s concerns. It would review the agent’s final accounts to any ensure missed visits were reflected.
6. The landlord could ask its relevant department to split the resident’s direct debit. However, withholding service charge payments was a breach of the lease agreement, and it would prompt recovery action in line with the landlord’s policies. The resident should seek legal advice before withholding payments.
The resident emailed the managing agent and the landlord the next day. He requested a copy of the block’s window cleaning schedule. He said the previous window cleaning issue took over 6 months to resolve. He subsequently reported the lift had been out of order for a week. With reference to service charges, he said its condition was wasting electricity and increasing the overall damage to the lift. Further, the landlord should complete a thorough investigation.
Within hours, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. Besides reiterating previous points, he said the consultation was conducted before he bought the property. Further, he would have objected based on the managing agent’s performance. In relation to prior window cleaning issues, the resident said he could evidence misleading information from the managing agent. He also said he was entitled to a refund for services not received under consumer protection legislation.
The parties’ correspondence shows the following events subsequently occurred between 21 and 22 April 2022:
1. In an email to the managing agent, the resident said a lift had been stuck on the third-floor for almost 2 weeks with its motor running. Further, he reported the issue to the site office on 2 occasions but no action was taken.
2. The managing agent advised the resident its window cleaning contractor attended the block in early 2022. Further, since cleaning was undertaken every 4 months, it would return in June 2022.
3. It later told the resident the block’s “small” lift had been repaired.
4. The next morning, the resident reported an engineer had evidently attended the lift. However, it was still faulty and the door wouldn’t shut properly.
5. He then raised a new complaint about unattended repairs in the block’s communal areas. His email included images of a damaged wall in a basement lift lobby. He said the wall had been in the same condition for over a year. Further, this showed service charge funds were being misused.
6. The managing agent told the resident the lift had been vandalised following the repair. It said the door had been forced from its runners and 2 engineers were now required to repair the damage. Further, in terms of service charges, these works were chargeable.
7. The landlord forwarded the resident’s damaged wall concerns to the managing agent. It asked why the repair had been outstanding for so long. It subsequently issued the resident a stage 2 acknowledgement, which said it would respond by 23 May 2022.
On 23 April 2022, the resident reported the block’s “one working lift” was unavailable and he was unable to attend an appointment with his husband. He asked the landlord to make arrangements to get them down. He subsequently raised an “official” complaint about the managing agent’s staff conduct. He said he eventually cancelled his appointment. Further, dismissive site staff enquired why the resident often raised complaints. He felt the family were unable to complete routine activities and their treatment amounted to discrimination.
The resident emailed the local authority’s adult social care department the following day. He said the lifts were still unavailable and the family were unable to enjoy their weekend because they could not leave the building. He likened his husband’s situation to a prisoner. He said the landlord should rehouse the family until the issue was resolved.
On 25 April 2022 the resident received advice from the local authority. It said he should establish when the lift would be repaired and details of the block’s emergency evacuation plans. Further, he should raise the matter of alternative accommodation with the landlord. The landlord subsequently forwarded the resident’s staff conduct complaint to the managing agent. It also asked several questions about the lift. The questions confirm the resident acted on the local authority’s advice.
In internal correspondence on 26 April 2022, the landlord said the managing agent had confirmed: there was no evacuation plan, the block had a “stay put” policy, and residents should agree their own plan with the fire service. It also said it would not decant a shared owner. Further, the landlord had requested the block’s latest fire risk assessment for an internal review. The Ombudsman has seen the corresponding assessment by a specialist compliance contractor. Section 1.4 of the contractor’s report, from June 2021, details the block’s “evacuation strategy”. It shows a stay put policy was advised “in accordance with current guidance”.
Based on the managing agent’s correspondence, an engineer attended the lift the same day. In internal correspondence on 28 April 2022, the landlord said repairs to the small lift, following vandalism, were completed that day. However, the other lift “went down” as it was awaiting repair. It also said the fire service had to remove someone stuck in the other lift. The Ombudsman has seen lift repair records that broadly support this timeline. The resident later told us, in June 2022, that the incident involving the local authority’s adult social care departement lasted for 3 days.
On 3 May 2022, the landlord shared some updates from the managing agent internally. They show it felt the resident’s staff conduct concerns related to an individual from the block’s security (not management) team. It said feedback would be given to the operative and their line manager. Further, the resident should attend only attend the site office during working hours. Outside of these times, he should contact another office using a number provided. They also show the managing agent felt the resident’s window cleaning concerns were resolved in 2021. It said, at this point, the Ombudsman had deemed its approach a fair resolution to the complaint.
The resident subsequently reported further lift faults to the landlord. On 7 May 2022 he reported the large lift was unavailable since the previous evening. While the small lift was working, he said there was a problem with the door. On 18 May 2022, he reported that “the lift fell all the way down to basement level” with the family inside. He said it was lucky there wasn’t an accident and he was unsure how the family would return to the property later.
The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 23 May 2022. This was around 20 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The response was incorrectly dated 23 March 2022. It addressed: the consultation process, a lack of lift maintenance, the duration of previous window cleaning issues and poor communication from the managing agent. The resident’s complaint was partially upheld. The main points were:
1. The managing agent had declared the major lift works appropriately. Though the consultation was delayed by the pandemic, the resident’s solicitor should have made him aware it was ongoing when he bought the property. There was no evidence of any related service failure by the landlord.
2. The landlord reviewed lift maintenance records between January 2021 and April 2022. There were 31 call-outs during this period (the Ombudsman has also seen these records). The landlord appreciated the situation was both frustrating and inconvenient. Until the lifts were replaced, repairs were the only available option.
3. The resident chased window cleaning works 8 times in 2021. He was given incorrect information about start dates on several occasions. Ultimately, the block’s manager attended to ensure the works were completed. The landlord appreciated the situation was frustrating. It upheld this aspect of the complaint.
4. The resident had confirmed he reported issues to the managing agent’s site staff on occasion. Though the landlord understood this was a convenient channel, this could mean it was unaware of some issues. He should copy the landlord into any requests made to the managing agent. This would allow the landlord to monitor them and chase any outstanding actions.
5. The resident was awarded £100 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience related to the window cleaning. To improve oversight, the landlord would share its recommendation about communication with the managing agent internally.
The resident replied the next day. He said the landlord’s compensation was laughable given the emotional impact to the family. This was on the basis, his husband was unable to attend hospital during the lift outage. Further, the resulting panic made him “emotionally unstable with negative and dangerous thoughts”. The resident said the family had no choice but to move elsewhere. With reference to the property’s previous occupant, he also disputed being given sufficient information about the lift refurbishment costs prior to the sale. His other points were:
1. By failing to provide services charged, the landlord was in breach of its legal obligations. It failed to address this point in its final response. Nor were any service charge refunds offered in relation to window cleaning, lifts or communal area repairs.
2. Lift outages “imprisoned” the family on a number of occasions. The resident reported these incidents and they should have been addressed in the landlord’s response, which also failed to address “verbal abuse” by block’s management staff.
3. In line with consumer protection legislation, the resident should receive a full service charge refund for the months where services were not received. The landlord failed to split the resident’s direct debit as requested. This was despite an email confirmation from the landlord.
The parties exchanged emails on 1 June 2022. The resident said the landlord’s failure to split his payment violated the direct debit guarantee. Further, he would ask his bank to dispute a payment being deducted that day. The landlord replied that it passed the resident’s details to its relevant team with an urgent contact request. It said it would contact him to set up a second direct debit.
The parties’ correspondence confirms the following events occurred between 10 June and 3 August 2022:
1. Following an enquiry from the resident, the managing agent advised window cleaning was due the following month.
2. On 25 July 2022 the resident reported the property’s windows had been cleaned but the bedroom window was missed.
3. On 30 July 2022, the resident confirmed the windows were now clean. This suggests the window cleaner was recalled.
4. The landlord clarified its approach to the resident’s complaint. It explained the relationship between developer, managing agent and landlord again. It said it understood the managing agent would incorporate any under spend into the following year’s budget. It reiterated the resident should seek legal advice.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 26 October 2023. He said the family no longer lived at the property. It was understood their move was partly due to suitability concerns about the lifts. He reiterated his husband had been “a prisoner” for a time. He confirmed he eventually paid the property’s allocated refurbishment costs. He said the landlord should have told him its previous occupant was allowed additional time to make its apportioned payment. Further, the cost of legal action outweighed any expected refund.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation was distressing for the resident and his family. The timeline shows he has multiple concerns around the landlord’s activities. It is reasonable to conclude the lift outage in April 2022 was a particularly upsetting incident. Where the Ombudsman finds failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress, inconvenience and loss of amenity.
The resident has said important information was withheld when he bought the property. The landlord disputed this assertion on the basis that all the relevant information, about the major works, would have been available to his solicitor. From the information seen, there was no evidence to support the resident’s related concerns. In general, it is typically a solicitor’s responsibility to make appropriate enquiries and alert the resident accordingly.
The resident also raised concerns around discrimination. It is acknowledged this is a serious allegation. We considered the evidence carefully with the concerns in mind. From the information seen, there was no information to indicate the landlord, or the managing agent, treated the resident and his family differently based on their personal characteristics. If he wants to pursue his point of sale or equality concerns, the resident should seek legal advice.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s various service charge concerns

The resident is seeking compensation for services not received. This includes periods where the block’s lifts were unavailable. The lease agreement shows the landlord is not liable for any failure or interruption of its repair services that is not attributed to its own actions. The situation is complicated by the development’s ownership structure. The information seen shows the managing agent was appointed by the developer. In other words, it is not the landlord’s agent. The resident correctly said he has no contract with the managing agent.
The landlord has said the lift issues were beyond its control. No information was seen to undermine this position. For example, there was no evidence to show the April 2022 outage was either due to, or prolonged by the landlord’s actions. On that basis, in itself, the outage is not evidence of a failure on the landlord’s part. Instead, the repair records broadly point to ageing components and instances of misuse (vandalism). From the information seen, we cannot fairly order the landlord to compensate the resident for the outage.
Though they asked the landlord for help on 23 April 2022, no information was seen to suggest the family received any assistance to leave the property. Given the circumstances, it was concerning that they were unable to rely on any contingency measures. As a result, the Ombudsman used its inquisitorial remit to consider whether any involved parties were obliged to assist them. The recommendation arising from the Grenfell Tower Inquiry around personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) was not made mandatory.
In other words, no information was seen to show the landlord or the managing agent were obliged to bring the family down from the property during the outage. It was noted the fire risk assessment said the block’s policy was in line with current guidance. Given the above, the Ombudsman was unable to point to a related failure by the landlord. Though the family has moved in this case, our recommendations will seek to ensure the landlord reflects on their experience with a view to improving matters for other residents.
With regards to the window cleaning, the landlord’s position changed over time. In 2021, it said it was unable to investigate because the resident’s complaint lay with the managing agent. In 2022, it compensated the resident £100 due to the poor service received from the managing agent while he was trying to resolve the issue. For clarity, the landlord should have adopted its final stance from the outset of the resident’s complaint. In other words, a passive approach was unacceptable given its contractual obligations to the resident.
Given the above, the landlord should have reasonably put things right for the resident in the first instance before seeking its own recompense from the managing agent if necessary. In general, it should proactively monitor the managing agent’s service charge information to ensure any due refunds are issued accordingly. It can report any performance concerns about the managing agent to the developer if necessary. In other words, the landlord can influence the managing agent to improve matters for its residents.
£100 in compensation was broadly proportionate to the managing agent’s initial failure. However, it took the landlord an additional period of around 10 months to reach a fair resolution. This was based on the period between 2 August 2021 and 23 May 2022. It is reasonable to conclude this delay was distressing, and that raising his concerns again in March 2022 was inconvenient for the resident. Contrary to its initial stage 1 response, no information was seen to show the landlord obtained a window cleaning schedule and used it to help the resident.
Since it failed to reflect these issues, the landlord’s compensation award was disproportionate. Given the overall impact to the resident, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. The Ombudsman will award increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. It shows the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s April 2021 complaint and at least 1 subsequent complaint request in the following months. Ultimately, it took the Ombudsman’s intervention to prompt a formal investigation by the landlord. This was both inappropriate and unnecessary. It is reasonable to conclude that resubmitting complaints and involving the Ombudsman caused the resident additional inconvenience. Further, the delay of around 4 months was distressing.
In 2022, there were quality issues with the landlord’s responses. For example, its stage 1 response in April 2022 said the landlord had previously responded to the resident’s window cleaning complaint. It also said the managing agent previously agreed to refund any missed visits. This information was not included in the landlord’s initial stage 1 response. The inconsistency shows the situation had developed following the landlord’s initial response. Further, the information it contained was now less relevant and potentially incorrect.
Nevertheless, there was no indication the landlord recognised this inconsistency. It should have reasonably attempted to unpack the contrary information with a view to improving its overall response to the resident. Further, despite referring to events which occurred at the end of April 2022, the landlord’s stage 2 response was incorrectly dated 23 March 2022. More significantly, the timeline suggests the landlord failed to respond to further complaints around damaged communal areas and staff conduct.
It is accepted these new complaints were raised after the resident’s escalation request on 21 April 2022. Still, the landlord should have either included them within the scope of its existing complaint, or opened a new complaint accordingly. Using the latter approach, it could have subjected the new complaints to both stages of its internal complaints procedure if necessary. However, though it raised staff conduct with the managing agent, the timeline suggests the landlord failed to respond accordingly to either new complaint.
This was both unfair and inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude both complaints concerned issues of key importance to the resident. For example, the staff conduct complaint raised (unspecified) issues around discrimination. For clarity, the Ombudsman expect landlords to formally investigate allegations of this type through their internal complaints procedure. In this case, no information was seen to suggest the resident was notified, even informally, of the managing agent’s reply. It is reasonable to conclude this undermined his confidence in the landlord.
Based on the timing of this assessment, the above points to a further delay of around 18 months. The evidence suggests that, during this period, the resident was unaware of the landlord’s stance in relation to his post-escalation complaints. Overall, the evidence shows there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. As mentioned, the timeline shows the landlord raised the resident’s staff conduct concerns with the managing agent.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s various service charge concerns.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

Given its contractual obligations, the landlord’s passive initial approach to the resident’s window cleaning complaint was inappropriate. While it eventually awarded compensation, it took the landlord an additional period of around 10 months to reach a fair resolution. The landlord failed to reflect this delay, and its impact to the resident, in its compensation award. The evidence suggests it also failed to obtain supporting service charge information for him.
The evidence suggests the landlord failed to respond appropriately to 4 separate formal complaints during the timeline. One of them involved discrimination concerns. It took the Ombudsman’s intervention to prompt an initial stage 1 response. There were quality issues with the landlord’s subsequent responses and combined complaint handling delays of around 22 months in total.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise to the resident for the key failures identified in this report. The landlord should acknowledge its initial response to the resident’s service charge concerns was inappropriate. Further, that it failed to respond to the resident’s post-escalation complaints. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its relevant letter/call transcript within 4 weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident a total of £500 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified service charge delays and failures. Providing it has already paid it, the landlord is free to deduct the £100 it previously awarded at stage 2 from this figure.
2. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified issues with the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord to review the year-end accounts for 2021 and 2022 to ensure any applicable service charge refunds were passed on to the resident accordingly. The landlord should focus on any window cleaning and communal area repair refunds. It should update the resident and the Ombudsman with its findings within 4 weeks.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its relevant staff for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should share a copy of its relevant internal communication with the Ombudsman within 4 weeks. This communication should encourage staff to routinely consider the landlord’s own complaint handling during every complaint investigation. This is with a view to ensuring any procedural issues are identified and redressed accordingly during its internal complaints procedure.
In conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: Landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents” report, the landlord to review its liaison arrangements with the managing agent and the developer. This is to ensure: its residents’ views and feedback are communicated clearly, any repair and maintenance issues are appropriately logged, and all parties are clear which body is responsible for addressing reported issues.

Recommendations

With reference to the family’s experience, the landlord to review its handling of the April 2022 lift outage. This is with a view to improving matters for residents in similar situations. The landlord should consider the possibility of unilaterally implementing additional safety measures such as evacuation chairs and PEEPs. With transparency in mind, it should also consider whether stay put policies, and their implications, should be communicated to residents (new and existing) with vulnerabilities. The landlord is encouraged to share its review findings with the Ombudsman.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendation within 4 weeks.