Stockport Homes Limited (202208908)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208908

Stockport Homes Limited

11 April 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs.
2. Decision to charge the resident for communal wi-fi.
3. Handling of the resident’s concerns about the concierge service.
4. Handling of reports of a vandalised car in the communal car park.
5. Complaints handling.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secured tenant. The property is a two-bedroom flat situated on the tenth floor of an eleven-storey building.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair including drains, gutters and external pipes.
The landlord has a responsive repairs policy that aims to provide its customers with a high quality, efficient and comprehensive repairs service before and during their tenancy. It prioritises repairs into the following categories:
1. Urgent – aiming to complete within 24 hours.
2. Non-urgent – aiming to attend within 30 days, at a time to suit the resident.
3. Planned – larger projects such as large areas of loose plaster. To be completed within a 6-month period.
4. Programmed – such as replacement of bathrooms and kitchens.
The landlord’s customer feedback procedure says it operates a two stage complaints process. Which involves:
1. A stage one response that will be responded to within 10 working days.
2. An appeal panel request as its stage two process which will be held within 15 working days following a request to escalate. There is a further five working days to provide an appeal panel response, with an extension not exceeding a further 10 working days. The appeal panel will consist of a Head of Service and up to two customers selected from the Customer Appeal Panel pool, unless the resident requested a panel excluding customers.

Summary of Events

The landlord emailed the resident on 4 June 2021. The landlord’s email does not make it clear what it had been emailing the resident about. The resident however replied to it on 8 July 2021 regarding repair issues. He apologised for the delay in responding and stated he was enclosing pictures of the bath seal as well as “the wall and paint issues that we had discussed”. The resident added “I do hope my complaint remains open and has all details mentioned on our call”.
The landlord carried out a structural survey on the building in November 2021. The survey included an inspection of 10% of the flats which included the resident’s. No issues were noted concerning the resident’s flat.
The landlord’s internal communication shows that on 3 December 2021 its housing offer sent an email to the neighbourhood team concerning a car which had been “smashed up last week”. Pictures were included showing the vandalised car. The email noted that no one had claimed the car and therefore it was assumed it had been abandoned.
The landlord’s neighbourhood team replied to the housing officer on the same day. It stated the car needed to be removed urgently due to the risk of fire. It added that the council’s process for removal took too long and this was a matter better suited for the police to deal with.
The resident visited the landlord’s offices on 16 March 2022 to make a complaint concerning several issues. The landlord has not provided this Service with a contemporaneous note which contained details of the verbal complaint the resident had made. It did email him back later the same day to inform him that it had logged the matter as a formal complaint. It added it would provide him with a full response by 30 March 2022, which was 10 working days, and that it would send him a further email setting out who would be dealing with the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 March 2022. He explained that he had not received a response from the landlord despite the deadline for its response passing. This had included no further email on who would be looking at his complaint. The resident asked for the next steps in escalating the complaint.
The landlord emailed the resident the stage one complaint response on 31 March 2022. It also tried to phone him, however he was unavailable. The stage one response explained:
1. In terms of the responsive repairs to the bathroom, it understood the resident stated there was an ongoing leak between the bath and the tiling despite an earlier repair for the same issue. In addition the resident added there were missed appointments for this issue. The landlord noted that it had previously attended to the bathroom in August 2019, at which point it had replaced the trim and resealed the bath. It added it could see no further record of this issue having been reported since that time nor that there were any missed appointments. However it accepted that the matter had been reported by the resident in July 2021 but “was not actioned at this time”. It stated a works order had been raised for 20 April 2022 for this and further works including a rotten shelf under the kitchen sink, to investigate water ingress around the bedroom window and to fix the lounge window which did not open.
2. In terms of the resident’s concerns that visitors had been given access to the building without checks, it had raised this with the concierge manager. It noted the manager had tried to contact the resident on 25 March 2022 but had been unable to speak with him. Whilst the resident had requested a call back later the same day this did not happen. It apologised for this and stated the concierge team would provide reassurance on the matter.
3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about being charged for the Wi-fi, it had no evidence he had provided the landlord with evidence he had his own personal Wi-fi. It added that if he had done so, it could have used discretion to remove the service charge for this up to April 2022 when it was due to be introduced for all residents. The landlord asked the resident to provide evidence so it could review whether to make a discretionary award for it.
4. It understood the resident had provided photos of areas where storage heaters had previously been situated. Following their removal the decoration no longer matched. The landlord explained that the heaters had been removed in 2015 as part of a heating upgrade work. It added that decorating grants were normally provided after this but it could not ascertain from its records (which did not go back this far) if this had occurred. It offered an amount of £100 as a gesture of goodwill.
5. It accepted the resident had contacted it in July 2021 to raise some of the above issues which it did not treat as a formal complaint. As a result no response had been issued to the resident. It made an award of £50 compensation for this issue.
The landlord’s concierge team also spoke to the resident on 31 March 2022 to understand his concerns about ineffective screening for callers to the building. The resident explained he had been let in to the building without being questioned. The concierge team acknowledged in an internal email that it had “some work to do to improve service delivery” and that this would be passed to all senior staff involved in property.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 5 April 2022. This was in relation to further concerns after the landlord’s stage one response. Following the call the landlord emailed the resident setting out its understanding of his concerns and its response to these. This included the following issues:
1. Repairs – the resident raised further repairs which the landlord confirmed would be addressed while the other repairs already scheduled were due to take place. In terms of the further repairs these were:
  1. Water ingress to the lounge window.
  2. A fault with the shower head holder.
  3. Low pressure with the cold water.
  4. The kitchen extractor running continuously which he was unable to adjust.
2. Concierge – The resident had spoken to the concierge manager on 31 March 2022 but was not reassured that steps were being taken to improve the service. The resident had also raised concerns that he had not been contacted by the concierge as set out by the stage one response, but instead it had been at a later date. The landlord accepted a need to improve the service and stated efforts were being made with regards to staff training. It explained it would raise the resident’s ongoing concerns with the concierge manager.
3. Wi-fi – The resident stated he had no proof of providing evidence of his own wi-fi to the landlord as he had shown his router to a staff member. As the resident had sent the landlord evidence of his wi-fi for the period from April 2021 to April 2022, it stated it would speak to the relevant service to see if it could refund the amount on a discretionary basis. It added that from April 2022 the charge would be applied to all residents irrespective of whether they had their own wi-fi.
4. Complaint handling – The resident remained concerned about the landlord’s approach to complaints and in improving services. He stated issues were not taken seriously by it and he wanted to see evidence of improvement before deciding whether he was happy with the outcome of his complaint. The landlord explained it would ask the Head of Service to contact the resident the following day to speak to him over the issue.
The landlord has not provided details of any notes following the call made by the Head of Service with the resident.
The landlord’s internal communication from 20 April 2022 showed that it contacted its contractor concerning the jobs which were scheduled on that day. It noted from its system that some of the works were in progress. It requested an update on this. However it noted there was no access for one of its operatives (electrician). It asked whether the electrician could return to the property. The landlord’s contractor confirmed that there had been no answer to the door when the electrician had attended so it had left a card. It added the electrician was not able to return to the property on that day and that, following a conversation with the resident, the electrician work had been rescheduled for 25 April 2022.
The landlord’s operative who had attended the property for many of the scheduled repair works emailed the landlord on 22 April 2022. He explained that the water ingress to the flat appeared to come from the flat above the resident’s. However as the windows had been beaded internally, it was unable to check inside them to see where the water was coming from. As the work affected the top two storeys of the building it stated it needed a vertical access cradle to investigate this issue.
The landlord’s operative sent the landlord a further email on 27 April 2022. He explained that, in terms of windows in the property which did not open, he had managed to fix the left window but could not resolve the right one. He had suggested that a joiner looked at resolving the right lock. A work order was raised on this day for this purpose.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 3 May 2022. It noted that the resident had “come to our office on 25th April 2022 to attend the hearing and explain your reasons for appeal”. The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous notes of what, if any, discussions had taken place at that time. The landlord in its response also referred to a previous email sent to the resident on 19 April 2022 which has not been provided to this Service. The landlord increased the compensation from £200 at stage one to £400. In terms of the various issues raised by the resident it noted the following:
1. Repairs – The landlord’s operative had attended the property on 20 April 2022. The operative had noted the following works:
  1. Damage to the shelves under the sink – this was repaired at the time.
  2. Sealant around the bath – repaired at the time.
  3. Faulty window – the left-hand window was repaired. The right-hand window was still stuck and a further repair job had been raised for 16 May 2022 to replace or repair “the right-hand tilt and turn mechanism”.
  4. Leak which had caused damage to the decoration and a crack in the ceiling – the operative felt this was caused by a “faulty drip tray on the window above your flat (114) or an area of external render that has failed”. It added that to complete this repair required planning and it was unable at that time to provide a date by which this would be completed. The landlord added it would chase up on the issue.
  5. Extractor fan – The electrician would attend on 15 May 2022 to undertake that repair.
2. Wi-fi charge – The landlord stated it would make a payment of £50 to cover the charges for the year from April 2021 onwards. The service charge had been set at 96p per week for this issue. The landlord noted the resident had accepted during the hearing on 25 April 2022 that this offer was acceptable to him.
3. Concierge service – The landlord noted during the hearing meeting on 25 April 2022 that the resident had provided video evidence of him being allowed in on multiple of occasions without the need for identity. The resident had also provided video footage showing people on his corridor who should not have been there. The resident stated access to unauthorised persons had created anti-social behaviour issues in the building. The landlord explained it had spoken to the manager of the concierge service to raise the issues the resident had experienced and how the service could be improved. The landlord added it understood the service needed to improve and that there would be “a focus on achieving this over the next three months”. The landlord also noted the resident had mentioned a car which was in the car park of the block which had been vandalised and left for several weeks. It added it understood the car had been cleared and it had reported the matter to the caretaking team so it could be more responsive in future.
4. Decoration grant – The resident felt that this should have been paid to him. The landlord had offered £100 which the resident had stated was acceptable.
5. Management of the complaint – The resident had stated he was not happy with this as he had not had a response to his original complaint in July 2021. This meant he had reported the matter again. The landlord stated the resident had been offered £50 for the matter at stage one. It accepted that the resident had expected an independent person to be present at the hearing at stage two which it was unable to arrange. It apologised for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 June 2022 in relation to the bathroom sink draining slowly. The landlord raised a job for 30 June 2022 which the resident was unable to accommodate. He requested an appointment for the following week.
The resident emailed the landlord on 4 July 2022 in response to the stage two response. He explained he wanted to wait until all the engineers sent by the landlord had attended. The resident enquired whether the landlord could review the offer of £400 which it had proposed as he felt it was inappropriate for the distress he had suffered.
The resident explained that in relation to the issues referred to by the landlord at stage two:
1. The repairs to the kitchen shelves and extractor fan had not been completed satisfactorily. He added that whilst the bathroom sealant had been replaced the new bath tub cover was “already peeling off on the side”. The resident accepted that the window mechanisms, whilst they were different in design for the left and right window, had been fixed and the matter was resolved. The resident stated he had yet to hear back from the landlord on the issue of the vertical access cradle which was required to inspect and repair the leaks by the windows.
2. Whilst he was prepared to accept the landlord’s offer for the Wi-fi he stated he did not want to see it on his future statements.
3. In terms of the concierge service this was the main issue of his complaint. The resident stated, whilst two full months had passed since the last contact, there had been no change in the service from the time he had initially reported it. He felt this did not inspire confidence that the landlord was handling the matter seriously. The resident also stated the landlord could do more to clean the flats and the area around them. He also notified the landlord that some other tenants had been smoking whilst using the lifts at the block. He wanted this matter investigated. The resident added he had mentioned the issue of the abandoned car to the landlord at stage two as he felt unsafe for himself together with his property.
4. He was prepared to accept the landlord’s offer for the decoration grant.
5. In terms of the management of his complaint the resident stated this had not been handled in accordance with the relevant guidance.
The landlord wrote to the resident to increase the offer to £450. The landlord’s letter is undated and it has not confirmed when it had been issued to the resident. It stated in this letter that this offer was the end of its internal complaints procedure.

Summary of events after the landlord’s complaints process

The landlord emailed the concierge service on 16 September 2022. It shared details of the resident’s complaint, in that people were being let into the block of flats without appropriate checks taking place. The landlord suggested the concierge service may wish to meet face to face with the resident when he had returned, as it noted he would be away until the first week of October 2022.
The landlord has provided a copy of an undated letter which it explains was given to all residents in the block of flats. This letter explained that following feedback it was making changes to the door entry system with effect from 3 October 2022. It explained the change meant any visitors would be required to call the resident first and the resident would then be able to let the visitors in. The landlord confirmed that the change would be initially for one month on a “test and learn” basis. It explained that it wanted to hear from residents concerning the plan and it provided a couple of dates when it would be visiting the property for residents to talk to it.
The resident contacted this Service to make a complaint on 23 September 2022. Following this request the Housing Ombudsman Service contacted the landlord on 5 October 2022 to request further information on the complaint.
The landlord’s housing officer sent an email on 6 October 2022 concerning the abandoned car. The email noted the housing officer had contacted the neighbourhood project team in December 2021 concerning the matter. The advice given to the housing officer had been to contact the police to remove the vehicle. The landlord noted that if the council had gone through its process on the removal that this would take time and so the police were the better option to remove it. The housing officer explained she had contacted the police, although she did not confirm on what date she did this, but she could not locate if the police had responded to her over the matter.
The landlord’s internal communications show that on 6 October 2022 it confirmed that it had made an appointment to visit the resident on 10 October 2022. The landlord noted it had asked the resident about the water ingress to the bedroom and lounge windows. The resident had confirmed that the issue only occurred “during exceptionally heavy downpours” and that it had last happened in April/May 2022. The email noted that in terms of the water ingress that it would need to be monitored over a longer period during which it would look at how much water was coming in. It added that if the water ingress was only occasional because of exceptional weather conditions it “would not be able to deal with external repairs to high-rise windows”. The landlord added an external structural survey in 2020 had found no issues at that time.
The concierge service emailed the landlord on 10 October 2022 to say that as a complaint had been made it should try to resolve the matter.
Following the visit to the resident’s property on 10 October 2022 an inspection report was produced. This report noted a structural survey carried out in November 2021 had identified no issues or water ingress. It concluded that the ingress was an isolated occurrence caused by extreme weather conditions and that the cladding on the building was regularly monitored. This gave it “confidence that the building is performing”. The landlord stated in the report that the area around the window was dry at the time and that the resident had stated the last time this had occurred in April 2022. The report noted there was “minor decorative deterioration caused by either previous water ingress or by condensation”. There was also a “slight stain to the cladding around the water reveal”.
The concierge service stated on 11 October 2022 that it had sent a text to the resident about finding a suitable day to meet. The following day the landlord sent an email to the resident about the wi-fi charges. It stated it had made a payment to the resident for the exemption period from April 2021 to April 2022. At that time it had planned on charging all residents. However it had made a change to policy and would, if the resident could provide evidence of a current contract, apply an exemption based on 96p per week to the rent account.
The landlord’s internal communication on 18 October 2022 noted that the resident had been in touch with it and agreed to meet with it the following week. It stated it was awaiting on a date and time from the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident, since completing the landlord’s internal complaints process, has raised further issues. These include issues to do with the seal around his bath tub which split within 24 hours and damage to his cars as well as his partner’s car. In addition the resident has raised further concerns with nuisance, vandalising of the building, as well as non-residents sleeping there. These matters will not be addressed as part of this investigation, as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure or been raised with it in the first instance. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation in relation to these issues which is set out at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of repairs.

The landlord has not provided this Service with details of the resident’s complaint which was made in March 2022. This means it is not entirely clear the degree of repair issues which he had raised with the landlord at that time. The landlord’s repairs logs show that it had received the various repairs via email on 25 March 2022 and it had arranged to speak to planners. The appointment had then been scheduled within 30 days of this date. This was in keeping with the landlord’s repairs policy for non-urgent repairs and was reasonable. This was as none of the repairs raised by the resident would have been deemed to have an urgent priority.
As the landlord addressed the repairs to the bathroom seal, the shelves under the kitchen sink, the ingress of water into the lounge and bedroom windows and the opening mechanism of the windows in its stage one response, these issues were likely to have been those raised by the resident in March 2022. In terms of the above matters, the landlord arranged for an operative to come out and address these issues on 20 April 2022. This was just over a month since the resident had attended the landlord’s office and spoken to it. In addition an electrician was due to attend on that day but the landlord explained as he could not gain access to the property he had left.
Following the landlord’s operative having attended on 20 April 2022, he carried out some repairs and for those he could not resolve at that time, such as the window opening mechanism, he arranged for a new works order to be raised. The new works were scheduled within 30 days, in keeping with a non-urgent repair. The landlord’s repair logs show that a works order was created on 17 May 2022 to refix the (kitchen cupboard) shelves and this was scheduled on 28 June 2022. This appointment therefore fell outside the timescales of a non-urgent repair. The electrician was scheduled to attend on 15 May 2022 in relation to the extractor fan.
The resident explained in his response to the landlord’s stage two response in July 2022 that the repairs to the extractor and the kitchen shelves carried out in April 2022 had not been satisfactory. In addition the works required to investigate the water ingress to the property had yet to be scheduled despite the landlord having stated in the stage two response that it would chase up on the matter. The landlord’s repair logs do show a repair for the refixing of the kitchen shelves at the end of June 2022 which supports that the original repair had not been completed satisfactorily but it does not mention the extractor. There was also no mention of the issue of further investigating the water ingress until October 2022 after the resident had referred the complaint to this Service. This was not appropriate. Whilst some repairs and works remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage two response there is no evidence the landlord kept monitoring and chasing up on these works. There was a gap of several months where no work was either scheduled or being undertaken and this would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s decision to charge the resident for communal wi-fi.

The landlord has explained that it had undertaken a consultation on the issue of charging residents for communal wi-fi and that this had been introduced via a service charge of 96p per week with effect from April 2021. The landlord added that there had been discretion to waive this charge upon the resident providing evidence of their own wi-fi. It accepted that, whilst the resident was unable to provide evidence that he had brought this to the attention of the landlord at that time, the resident did have his own wi-fi at the time. Given this the landlord made an offer of £50 for this matter. This was a reasonable approach from the landlord as it was equivalent to the service charge for the wi-fi from April 2021 to April 2022. The resident had accepted this offer from the landlord.
The landlord further explained that it had made the decision to charge all residents in the property block for wi-fi from April 2022 by means of a service charge. This was irrespective of whether they held their own personal wi-fi. Following the resident’s complaint and the end of the landlord’s complaints process it confirmed on 12 October 2022 that it had made a change in policy over the issue of the service charge for wi-fi and could apply an exemption if a resident could show they had their own wi-fi since April 2021. However the resident has recently informed this Service that he was still being charged for the wi-fi. The landlord has confirmed that, whilst it had spoken to the resident on 12 October 2022, he had not provided this evidence at this point. However it added it had made an internal decision to make the resident exempt from the charge for wi-fi. Despite this, the landlord has confirmed that it did not make any changes to the resident’s account at that time and that it has only now made those changes, backdated to April 2021. It added it would contact the resident and apologise. Whilst an apology from the landlord would be merited it is not sufficient in the circumstances. The resident has been paying for over two and a half years to the present time for a service he does not need and despite being informed the landlord would make a payment for this, initially for April 2021 to April 2022 it did not do this. The issue has caused the resident inconvenience and a payment of compensation for the landlord’s service failure on this issue is merited.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the concierge service.

The landlord took reasonable first steps following the resident having raised concerns about the security checks undertaken by the concierge service. It passed the resident’s concerns to the concierge service and it attempted to speak to the resident on 25 March 2022. This was nine days after the resident had raised concerns about the matter. As the concierge service had not been able to speak to the resident at the time, it informed him it would call back however this did not occur. The landlord apologised for this which was reasonable given the circumstances.
The landlord confirmed that the concierge service spoke to the resident on the day it issued the stage one response, which was six days after the initial attempt on 25 March 2022. The landlord has not provided notes of the conversation held with the resident. Whilst the landlord noted that the concierge service had stated it needed to improve the service it was delivering and that it would pass this on to senior staff, the landlord has not provided any evidence of what actions the concierge service took at that time. The resident explained the service had not improved and that callers were let into the building with no checks undertaken. He provided video footage to support this as well as his own experience when accessing the building.
The landlord’s stage two response in May 2022 reiterated improvements were required and it informed the resident there would be a focus on this over a three-month period. The landlord provided evidence of the steps it undertook; these included setting up a dedicated management team to oversee the concierge service delivery standards, conducting staff training and coaching and closely monitoring performance, analysing call volumes, undertaking a trial to assess the scope within which the new system would work. Further to this, the landlord provided evidence of a report that was presented to the senior leadership team on 13 September 2022 which detailed an action plan and steps for improvement in relation to the concierge service.
The landlord has provided evidence that following a review of the matter it has made changes to how it allows visitors to access the building. Responsibility for letting visitors in now rests with the resident. These changes were due to be implemented in October 2022, following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process. The changes were initially due to be for a one-month trial. It was not made clear whether following the trial it was extended or amended.
Having considered everything above, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of this matter. The reason for this is because the landlord caused a delay in progressing with the improvements. The resident raised the issues in March 2022 and evidence of active progression was only seen from September 2022 onwards. It is important to highlight that it is understood that the landlord was taking steps to progress with the improvements and was considering reasonable actions it could undertake internally; however, this does not deter from the fact that a delay was caused and impacted the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of a vandalised car in the communal car park.

Although the resident raised this issue following the stage one response from the landlord, it related to events prior to that response. The landlord was already aware of the issue as shown by its internal communication from December 2021. The housing officer had explained at that time that the car had been abandoned since no one had claimed it and that at that time it had been in the vandalised state for a week. The landlord’s response to the communication from the housing officer explained that the appropriate action was to remove the car. This was appropriate on the grounds of health and safety, given the risk of the vehicle being set on fire.
The landlord’s email from 3 December 2021 noted that the council’s process for removing the vehicle was long winded and therefore it may be more prudent for the police to remove the car. Following the resident’s complaint over this aspect the housing officer explained she had contacted the police however has not provided evidence of when this took place. Although the vehicle had been removed, presumably by the police, no details were provided on when this occurred and exactly how long the vehicle had been left in a vandalised state in the car park. The Ombudsman would like to remind the landlord of the needs to keep detailed contemporaneous notes and to regularly monitor the situation and for it to step in should there be any prolonged delay. The landlord should also have kept the resident informed of this, especially as he stated the matter had caused him concern from a safety point of view.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to formally register the resident’s complaint when he had contacted it in July 2021. Whilst it initially made an offer of £50 for this matter in the stage one response, the total compensation offered to the resident had more than doubled by the time of the stage two response. The landlord did not break down its revised offer, however the correspondence acknowledged the resident had accepted the £50 for the wi-fi issue and £100 for the decoration grant. Therefore the further £200, later increased to £250 was in relation to the other issues which included the complaints handling.
Following the resident having made his formal complaint in March 2022 the landlord responded to the stage one and stage two responses in accordance with its complaints policy. However at stage two it did not include an independent individual as part of the appeal panel. Although the landlord apologised for this in the stage two response it did not provide any explanation why it did not adhere to its own complaints policy. This lack of an independent individual caused the resident a degree of distress and it was a service failure on the part of the landlord. However by increasing its offer at this time, its offer in relation to the complaints handling was in the Ombudsman’s opinion reasonable redress for the matter.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord has provided little information in the form of conversations which it held with the resident. The resident’s interactions with the landlord involved several face-to-face meetings. This included when he had made his complaint on 16 March 2022 and when the resident attended the appeal hearing. Despite this the landlord did not provide contemporaneous notes of the conversations which it held with the resident including when its operatives had attended the property. The landlord’s repair logs, whilst noting several repairs following the end of its internal complaints process in May 2022, were scarce in detail with repairs prior to this date.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair request as well as the complaints handling. These recording failures all amounts to a failing on the part of the landlord as they would have caused the resident inconvenience and frustration over the time taken to resolve the issues which he had raised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s decision to charge the resident for communal wi-fi.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the concierge service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of a vandalised car in the communal car park.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to deal with all the repairs in keeping with the timescales under its repairs policy. In addition it failed to follow up on the issue of the further investigation on the water ingress for several months and only acted on the matter after the resident had escalated his complaint to this Service.
Although the landlord offered an amount to cover the service charge for the communal wi-fi for the period from April 2021 up to and including March 2022 which was acceptable to the resident, it failed to make this adjustment to the resident’s rent account. Although it had also agreed to exempt the resident for the wi-fi charge from April 2022 onwards it again did not factor this adjustment in to the resident’s rent account up to the present time.
The landlord caused a delay in progressing with the improvements to the concierge service. The resident raised the issues in March 2022 and evidence of active progression was only seen from September 2022 onwards. It is important to highlight that it is understood that the landlord was taking steps to progress with the improvements and was considering reasonable actions it could undertake internally; however, this does not deter from the fact that a delay was caused and impacted the resident.
The landlord referred the matter to the police based on health and safety as this was a quicker process to remove the car. Although it is unknown how long the car remained vandalised in the communal car park before it was removed, the police did remove it.
Although there were failings in the landlord’s complaints handling, particularly in the failure to record a complaint in July 2021 and the absence of an independent party at stage two of the landlord’s internal complaints process it made a reasonable offer of redress for this aspect.
There were record keeping failures by the landlord in terms of its communication with the resident. The landlord did not take notes of the face-to-face meetings which it had with the resident. Its repair logs also contain an absence of relevant data.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £350. This is in addition to the £450 offered at stage two which it should also pay if it has not already done so. The further amount comprises:
  1. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
  2. £50 for the landlord’s failure to adjust the resident’s rent account for the communal wi-fi service charge.
  3. £150 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the concierge service.
  4. £50 for the landlord’s failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
The landlord should contact the resident to obtain details of any current concerns as set out in paragraph 36 above which the resident may have which it has not previously considered by means of its internal complaints process. It should then review them and consider whether any further work is undertaken in respect of the issues.
The landlord should review its approach to abandoned vehicles on its estates to ensure prompt action is taken, even if it has deemed that another body is responsible for dealing with the matter.