Places for People Homes Limited (202109254)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109254

Places for People Homes Limited

20 April 2022

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the performance of the estate management company.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a first floor flat within a low-rise block.
The landlord is obliged to manage and maintain the estate on which the property is located; the lease agreement obliges to the resident to pay a service charge for this.
The estate is managed by a management company who act as an agent of the landlord. The service level agreement between the landlord and the management company sets out that the management company will manage customer complaints, raise repairs within one working day, respond to correspondence within five working days and allow residents access to its portal for managing service charge issues. It is also expected to issue service charge estimates by 31 January and produce accounts within four months of ‘year end’.
The agreement allows for the landlord to review the performance of the management company according to key performance indicators (KPIs) with mid-year and annual reviews. The KPIs include collection of rent and service charges and compliance with gas regulations. If the management company does not meet its performance targets, the landlord can require it to prepare a formal improvement plan or, ‘in extremis’, the landlord can terminate the contract.
The landlord has a complaints policy that sets out a two-stage complaints process with responses required within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two). It adds that the landlord can immediately escalate serious or high-profile complaints to stage two.
The landlord has a compensation policy that shows that it can award compensation where there is unreasonable delay on its part or it has fallen short of expected standards.
The Ombudsman made a determination on 22 October 2020 (case reference 201912843) that partly related to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the management company. This specifically considered the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance and his request for the landlord to end its contract with the management company; it determined that there was no maladministration by the landlord on the substantive issues as it ‘was not under an obligation to replace the management company at the request of the resident’.

Summary of Events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2021. He asked for confirmation that a complaint had been logged as there had been a failure to provide the 2021/22 service charge statement and he queried what the landlord was doing about concerns that had been raised about invoices that residents had recently received.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 31 March 2021, advising that the service charge statement had now been issued, apologising for a delay in offering a response and advising that the management company would deal with the complaint.
The resident explained on 31 March 2021 that he did not wish the management company to deal with the complaint given his previous experience with them and clarified that his complaint was also about the landlord’s actions and attitude in answering his emails to date, the six-month delay in providing invoices for the service charge accounts for the previous year and the failure to issue the 2021/22 statement until 30 March 2021.
The landlord further acknowledged the complaint on 4 May 2021 – this showed that it had discussed the matter with the resident and that the complaint was regarding the general service standards of the management company (and a request therefore for the management company to be replaced), incorrect charges, a failure to consistently answer enquiries about tree works and a delay in appointing a new cleaning contractor.
The landlord and resident exchanged further emails in early May 2021 when the former advised that it had replaced the previous point of contact member of staff, was investigating the complaint and would provide a further update on when a planned resident survey would occur.
The landlord’s internal records show that a working group was created on 13 May 2021 to review the effectiveness of the service level agreement between it and the management company. It noted an intention to adopt a new service level agreement by the end of October 2021.
The landlord issued a final complaint response to the resident on 14 May 2021. It concluded that:
1. it acknowledged that the resident was of the view that the landlord had not adhered to an improvement plan it agreed with residents in late 2019 (this plan required it to ensure various services were re-tendered, provide residents with a copy of the service level agreement between it and the management company and conduct a performance review by June 2020)
2. it agreed that its service had fallen short of expected standards for which it apologised, advised that a specific member of its staff would no longer be involved with management of the scheme and awarded £150 compensation (for distress, inconvenience and two missed deadlines on issuing invoices)
3. it proposed an action plan that it asked the resident for feedback on
4. its action plan included proposals for it to carry out a consultation with residents, review the invoicing process and provide clarity to residents on the role of it and the management company (it said it would complete all of these actions by 21 June 2021).
The resident replied to the landlord on 16 May 2021. He said he had added comments to the action plan and he thought it would be better for an independent reviewer to consider the performance of the management company. He also questioned the level of compensation and asked about some maintenance and service charge enquiries he had raised. The resident made comments on the action plan to reiterate his concerns around service charge invoicing and communications and an outstanding query about guttering clearance.
The landlord responded to the resident on 18-20 May 2021. It increased its compensation award to £300 and said it would consider the need for an independent review of the management company once the resident survey was done (confirming annual reviews had been done of the management company). It added that it could arrange a survey of any ongoing maintenance concern at its own cost and said it would answer the service charge queries by 21 June 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2021 – he said that he had been waiting on answers about various enquiries for around a year, including about outstanding gutter clearance, tree surgery and decorations works and when a new cleaning contract would commence. He added general comments about how little residents got in exchange for their management charges.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 May 2021, following a telephone conversation – it set out updates on issues such as the cleaning contract and gutter clearance, advised what services the management fee covered and said that it would look to ensure the service charging process was not delayed the following year as it had been for 2021/22. The resident responded on 2 June 2021, raising further concerns around some of the updates offered and setting out aspects of the management fee residents did not feel were being delivered.
The landlord’s records show that there were two meetings between it and the management company in June 2021 to discuss operational issues and make amendments to a quarterly service report. The national report (for 1 March 2021 – 31 May 2021) showed the management company had not met targets for property manager escalated calls and reactive repairs responses but the direction of travel was improving; it included reference to concerns about performance for the resident’s estate and an ongoing resident survey project with 76% of customer contacts logged for the estate having been resolved within service level agreement timescales.
The landlord issued a resident survey questionnaire on 10 June 2021 that showed that it had introduced a new cleaning contractor on 1 June 2021 and was seeking resident views on the management company by 16 July 2021.
The notes from the second landlord-management company meeting in June 2021 show that:
1. staff had been trained on a new complaints procedure
2. key themes such as transparency and maintenance of communal areas were already coming out of the resident survey
3. more commentary was needed when management company service was found to be below target levels
4. more detail on KPIs was needed in the service level agreement (to be revised in October 2021).
The resident made reports to the landlord during June 2021 that the management company had sent keys to an incorrect location which meant that the cleaning company had delayed in commencing their duties, it had not given the grounds maintenance contractor sufficient information to effectively carry out their duties and roof tiles had dangerously fallen to the floor on 14 June 2021. Later correspondence showed that the roof was surveyed on 22 June 2021 with a note to show that roof repairs had been done and would suffice.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails in late June 2021 showing that:
1. the resident raised concerns that the management company portal showed tree surgery works as done when they were not
2. the landlord apologised for previously giving inaccurate information about a contractor
3. the landlord said that more transparency around service charge costs was part of the ongoing review
4. a service charge breakdown for 2020/21 was provided by the landlord.
The landlord’s internal records show that its working group to review the service level agreement between it and the management company met on 7 July 2021.
The landlord and resident exchanged further emails in July 2021 showing that:
1. the resident survey was to close and results would be passed to residents the following month
2. the landlord said it would provide more accounting information by 23 July 2021 and gave further information that seemed to be related to charges for items such as fencing and lighting maintenance
3. the landlord apologised for delays in planned tree surgery and the issuing of a June newsletter
4. the resident said he was seeking for the landlord to start a process for removal of the management company and for a partial reimbursement of the annual service charge bill
5. the resident asked for a complaint to be logged but the landlord advised it had already issued its final complaint response and was still working through the related action plan.
The resident approached this Service in July 2021. He said he was dissatisfied with what he regarded as non-maintenance of the scheme, lack of clarity and overcharging on invoices, a delay of two months in service charges being issued and a lack of accountability. He suggested that the landlord should replace the management company.
The service level agreement working group met on 10 August 2021 and the items on the agenda included concerns about customer service levels for the resident’s estate as well as service charge administration. The landlord’s internal progress checker document shows that it had completed actions by this point to discuss the leaseholder experience and consider opportunities for residents to be given more information, including about a new service level agreement.
The landlord arranged a resident survey feedback meeting for 11 August 2021. The notes of that meeting show that:
1. there were 47 responses to the resident survey with negative feedback given about the management company, including discontent with service charges, failings of the management company to respond to enquiries and complaints and dissatisfaction with the quality of work by grounds maintenance and repairs contractors
2. the landlord proposed to create an action plan with a monthly progress review
3. actions to be taken included an improved newsletter, more communication with residents about the schedules for cleaning and landscape contractors and promotion of use of a digital platform so residents could obtain ‘real time’ updates.
The resident raised concerns with the management company during mid-late August 2021 that the block had not been cleaned for several weeks (which he said he understood to be due to access issues and problems with the management company paying the cleaning company) and that there was a potential issue with trees causing structural damage.
On the tree issue, the landlord advised the resident that he could meet with the contractors on site and the management company recorded that the cleaning had been done by 18 August 2021. The resident subsequently confirmed this but asked the management company why there had been a delay and for assurance that leaseholders would not be charged for the period of no cleaning.
The landlord wrote to the management company on 24 August 2021 – it advised it of a revised format for the quarterly management information report that it expected to be implemented by the time of the next meeting.
The landlord sent the resident survey results and action plan to residents on 1 September 2021. The plan showed that:
1. the management company intended to conduct a combination of weekly, fortnightly and monthly site visits to review various cleaning and grounds maintenance work
2. the management company intended to complete monthly site visits with residents and monitor cleaning and grounds maintenance functions through regular works sign-offs
3. the management company had an ongoing aim to contact all residents to encourage sign up to its portal, that it would favour email communication in line with the resident survey outcome and that a dedicated customer service agent would independently monitor responses.

The landlord offered for residents to provide feedback on the plan before a final version was produced on 1 October 2021.

The landlord advised this Service in September 2021 that an action plan was due to ‘go live’ in October 2021 (when it would also be monitored for three months) and a project was being undertaken with a view to implementing a new service level agreement between it and the management company from November 2021.
The resident passed on concerns to the landlord on 13-14 September 2021 that the data from the survey had not been processed accurately and the action plan was flawed as more visits were unlikely to improve the service, there was nothing about reimbursing residents for incorrect charges and no indication that the landlord was willing to replace the management company if it failed against the action plan. He added that tree works had begun without a plan of exactly what was to be completed and there had been no answer on possible structural damage being caused to buildings by the trees.
The landlord advised the resident in October 2021 that a new survey would be conducted in January 2022 to check whether there had been improvement in the management company’s performance.
The landlord and resident have exchanged emails as recently as April 2022 – in these exchanges, the resident again asked the landlord what will happen if the most recent resident survey shows a willingness to remove the management company and raised continued concerns about the level of detail, and transparency, in account breakdowns.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident has consistently raised concerns about the performance of the landlord’s management company over recent years. Both the resident and landlord have referred to an improvement plan that local residents drew up in late 2019 and which the landlord apparently agreed to. This included reference to the quality of estate maintenance services and how the landlord assessed the performance of the management company. The Ombudsman has already reviewed the landlord’s handling of events up to May 2020 so these events are outside the jurisdiction of this investigation.
The resident began to report continued concerns again regularly from March 2021 – this was initially because of a delay in the 2021/22 service charge notice being sent to residents. The service level agreement obliges the management company to ensure service charge estimates are issued by the end of January so it was inappropriate that these were sent two months late. The landlord also subsequently agreed with the resident that there was a need to improve the transparency of service charge information being offered to residents and that it had contributed to lower than expected service standards.
When the landlord reviewed the resident’s complaint in May 2021, it apologised, replaced its point of contact for the resident, awarded him compensation of £300, confirmed it had set up a working group to review the effectiveness of its service level agreement with the management company and committed to a resident survey to establish the views of residents on the estate about the management company. These were all reasonable actions on the part of the landlord to address the resident’s concerns and demonstrated that it was fair in its assessment of its failings and was willing to take steps to put things right and learn lessons from the complaint.
The landlord subsequently followed up on the complaint process outcome by:
1. issuing the resident survey in June 2021, meeting to discuss the results in August 2021 and sending the results to residents in September 2021
2. meeting with the management company twice in June 2021 to discuss operational issues
3. advising the management company in August 2021 that the quarterly reporting format would be changed
4. meeting with the management company in July 2021 and August 2021 to discuss the potential changes for a new service level agreement it intended to introduce in October 2021.

These actions demonstrated that the landlord was committed to following up on the promises made in its final complaint response to put things right.

In regard to the specific feedback received from residents about the management company performance, it was noted that there were failings in terms of communications and response timescales and the landlord sought to improve this during June-October 2021 by:
1. ensuring that the new cleaning contract commenced from June 2021
2. providing more information on the 2020/21 service charge breakdown in late June 2021
3. training staff on new complaint handling processes
4. checking that management company performance in specific problem areas such as timescales on property manager and reactive repairs responses was improving
5. asking that the management company provided more explanation in future when KPIs were not met
6. requiring the management company to explore ways to ensure that leaseholders were able to access more accurate information about works and charges, including promoting access to a ‘portal’ system
7. arranging for the management company to be on site more frequently to check quality of works.

These actions demonstrated that the landlord considered the specific concerns identified both from the resident’s complaint and the outcome of the resident survey as part of the plan to improve the management company service. This was in accordance with the landlord-management company service level agreement that shows that the former can require the latter to work to a formal improvement plan when KPIs are not met.

The resident has understandably expressed frustration with the timescale for the resident survey and improvements and consistently requested that the landlord replace the management company. However, the landlord-management company service level agreement sets out that a termination of the contract will only happen ‘in extremis’ – it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to attempt to improve performance and review progress before considering the option of ending the management company contract.
The landlord’s overall approach to consider the resident’s concern about the management company and implement a plan to remedy performance failings was reasonable as was its decision to review progress during October-December 2021 and ask residents for their updated views through a new survey in January 2022.
However, it is of concern that a new service level agreement was not produced in October 2021 as planned and it is unclear if the management company KPIs have improved since September 2021 – recommendations are made below in this regard.
In summary, it is not disputed that there was service failure prior to May 2021 as there were delays in service charge information being sent to the resident for 2021/22 and the management company did not meet required KPIs in the first quarter of this period. However, the landlord has addressed these concerns appropriately by replacing the staff member that was handling the matter, awarding compensation, asking residents for feedback and implementing an improvement program in late 2021 in accordance with the service level agreement it holds with the management company.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the performance of the estate management company.

Reasons

The landlord offered sufficient redress through the complaints process for the failures of it and its management company up to that point. It subsequently acted in accordance with the service level agreement it holds with the management company in an effort to improve the service offered to residents and there was no obligation on it to end the contract with the management company at this point as the resident had requested.

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to write to the resident to:
1. provide an updated copy of the service level agreement it holds with the management company, confirming how it has been amended from the April 2021 version;
2. advise him of the management company performance against its KPIs during the second half of 2021;
3. inform him of the outcome of the most recent resident survey and what actions will be taken in light of this.
The landlord to consider introducing a procedure that it can follow to outline its approach in escalating performance concerns with managing agents, including when and how it will consider ending contracts.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.