Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202115633)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115633

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

28 April 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

The resident complains about the landlords handling of:
1. Repairs to the communal door.
2. The cleaning of the communal areas of the building.
3. Non resident’s use of car parking at the property.
4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a first floor flat in a building that includes communal areas. The resident has no recorded any vulnerabilities.

Scope of investigation

In the resident’s correspondence has made reference to historical issues regarding communal doors in the property. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. Therefore, the focus of this service’s assessment will cover the resident’s concerns about the communal door from April 2021.

Summary of events

The resident first reported concerns that the communal door was not working on 31 August 2021. The landlord arranged for an inspection on 16 September 2021. The resident raised a further communal door repair request on 20 September 2021, as the rear door lock and latch was not working.
The resident first complained via email to the landlord on 17 September 2021 regarding the communal door, communal cleaning and non resident car parking.
The landlord attended on 28 September 2021 to fix the faulty proxi reader on the communal door. At this time, the resident said there were remaining issues with the fob reader. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 12 October to address concerns with the fob reader.
A deep clean was scheduled to take place on 4 October 2021, but due to staff shortages with the contractor of the landlord, it was rescheduled and took place on 23 December 2021.
On 10 October 2021, the resident brought her complaint to this Service. At this time, this Service contacted the resident to establish whether the complaint was ready for us.
On 18 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage one response. In its response the landlord said:
1. The door has been inspected and it is working correctly, and the night latch is in place. The landlord said the key lock works as does the fob entry.
2. The records show a cleaner attended on 10 September 2021 and all work was completed to good contract standard. The landlord went onto say that an annual deep clean was due to take place on 1 October 2021.
3. The landlord apologised for the poor level of service delivered and agreed to provide feedback to relevant teams. The landlord also offered £40 as a financial remedy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 October 2021 to request for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. On 20 December 2021 the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to request for it to provide its stage two response.
On 8 December 2021, the landlord inspected the communal door, and it is working correctly, and the night latch is in place. The landlord said the key lock worked, as did the fob entry.
The records show a cleaner attended on 10 September 2021, and all works were completed to good contract standard. The landlord went onto say that an annual deep clean was due to take place on 1 October 2021.
The landlord apologised for the poor level of service delivered and agreed to provide feedback to relevant teams. The landlord also offered £40 as a financial remedy.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord provided its stage two response. In its response the landlord said:
1. The communal door was checked on 8 December 2021 and no problems were identified. The landlord recorded the door was secure and the suited keys worked on the night latch. Additionally, the fob system was in working order.
2. The landlord apologised that a deep clean did not take place on 4 October 2021. The landlord confirmed a deep clean took place on 23 December 2021 and following an inspection no issues were identified.
3. The landlord confirmed that the parking is managed by its management company. The landlord said the carpark does have signs stating for resident’s only and is patrolled by its management company. During a visit to the carpark the landlord reported vehicles which did not have a permit to park.
4. The landlord provided details for the resident’s new local housing manager.
In resolution to its stage two response the landlord apologised and offered redress of £60. This was due to the service failings on behalf of the landlord relating to lack of communication regarding the deep clean. Also, for not providing an update on the issues raised.

Post complaints process

Following the landlord’s stage two response, the landlord completed a review of its previous responses on 10 January 2022. The landlord addressed its review response to the Ombudsman. In its review the landlord acknowledged:
1. Its poor complaint handling and this partly related to a change in the resident’s housing manager. The landlord went onto say there was no handover of the resident’s complaint, leading to a delay in providing its response.
2. It did not address the resident’s complaint about the carpark in its stage one or two response.
At review stage it identified that the communal door had been tampered with. Therefore, work was completed on the door on 3 December 2021.
Further to this, the landlord awarded further compensation. This included:
1. £100 for poor complaint handling.
2. £50 for failure in service due to the lack of handover between one housing officer to the new housing manager resulting in delays.
3. £50 to address the time and trouble it took to address all of the resident’s concerns.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right, and.
3. Learn from outcomes.

Repairs to the communal door

The terms and conditions to the resident’s lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining the structure of the property and for keeping in proper working order all fixtures and fittings.
In accordance with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord is obliged to repair and maintain the exterior and structure of rental properties.
The landlord’s repair policy states it has target times for completion of repairs which fall into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
3. Major routine repairs within three months or as part of its planned programme of works.
In terms of the categories above, a repair of a communal door is classified as a routine repair. Therefore, the landlord aims to complete repairs within 28 calendar days.
The resident reported concerns about the communal door entry system on 31 August 2021. The resident said this was causing difficulties for residents accessing the flats. The evidence supplied to this service indicates the resident wanted the communal door to be replaced with an upgrade.
The records show that the landlord attended the property on 16 September 2021 and found that the fob entry system was not working. As such, a repair took place. This was a reasonable action for the landlord to take to understand the nature of the issue. This was in line with its repair obligations to complete repairs within 28 calendar days as noted within the landlord’s own repair policy.
On the 20 September 2021, the resident reported a further issue with the rear door lock and latch. It is recorded that the landlord attended a further time to replace the faulty proximity reader (helps to validate a person’s identity) on 28 September 2021. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 5 October 2021 as the resident had reported further issues with the door fob reader. It is noted that on 12 October 2021, the landlord attended a further time fix issues with the front communal door fob reader. At the beginning of December 2021, the landlord reinstated the fob readers at the property. A further landlord inspection on the doors took place on 8 December 2021.
The purpose of the landlord inspection on 8 December 2021 was to review the ongoing issues with the communal door. At this time, the landlord said the door was working as it should be. Additionally, the door was secure, and the key was working in the night latch. The landlord also said the fob working was in full working order. This service finds the landlord’s actions following complaints about the communal door to be reasonable.

The cleaning of communal areas of the building

The relevant policy this Service consider on this complaint matter is the landlord’s responsibility in the lease agreement: The tenancy agreement particularly, section 3 (b) states it is for the landlord to keep clean and reasonably lighted and heated the passages landings staircases and other parts of the buildings enjoyed or used by the tenant in common with others. Therefore, the landlord is responsible for fulfilling its cleaning obligations and investigating any issues raised by the resident.
The resident has provided picture evidence to this Service to show communal areas after cleaning had taken place. While the Ombudsman recognises the resident’s concerns about the lack of communal cleaning, our role in such cases is to consider the responses and actions of the landlord. This includes whether it took proportionate and appropriate action to investigate the issues raised. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make a judgement on whether the property was or was not cleaned properly.
The resident reports that on 10 September 2021 she returned home to signs that a clean had taken place. However, the resident says there was no evidence that a clean took place as there were still marks on the floor which originated prior to the clean. The resident has provided an undated photo showing a floor with marks on it.
From the evidence available, this Service can see that a clean took place on 10 September 2021. It is noted that the frequency of clean should take place on a fortnightly basis. Furthermore, a deep clean should take place yearly.
In its stage one complaint response dated 18 October 2021 in response to this matter the landlord confirmed it contacted the estate manager. The landlord established that the cleaning on 10 September 2021 was shown to have been completed to a good contract standard.
This Service has been provided with minimal information or records in relation to cleaning records. As such, it has not been possible to gain a thorough understanding of what cleaning has or has not taken place since the resident complained. This is due to the fact that there are no records in the form of attendance logs, inspection records or otherwise, to show that the cleaning was taking place as expected.
In respect of record keeping, as the landlord did not provide a full account of cleaning records or logs both prior to and since the resident complained. There was a failure on its part in the form of poor record keeping for the above periods, as the landlord did not provide comprehensive records in relation cleaning records.
Since the resident raised her complaint on 17 September 2021, the landlord contacted its cleaning contractors to obtain records on 30 September 2021. Additionally, requested that the contractors ensured cleaning took place as well as setting out its cleaning expectations. Overall, the landlord demonstrated it took appropriate steps to investigate the level of cleaning taking place to fulfil its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement. It was appropriate that the landlord carried out the inspection of the area, so that it could respond to the further reports raised about the standard of cleaning.
When the resident escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process, she noted that the proposed deep clean arranged for 4 October 2022 did not take place.
In response to this point, in the landlord’s stage two response dated 10 January 2022, it apologised that a deep clean did not take place on 4 October 2022. The landlord apologised for any inconvenience caused. Additionally, the landlord explained that this was due to staff shortages and confirmed a deep clean took place on 23 December 2021.
In this case, the resident is understandably concerned that communal cleaning was not taking place. This Service can see that the landlord was proactive in contacting the company contracting to do the cleaning. Additionally, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to complete an inspection to gain clarity of whether the cleaning taking place was appropriate. With this in mind, the landlord inspected the property on 8 December 2021, and did not identify any areas of concern. The deep clean was rearranged, however, this was two months later than planned on 23 December 2021.
The tenancy agreement is clear that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep communal areas clean. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the annual clean should have taken place within 28 days of cancelling the planned cleaning in October as per its routine repair policy. As such, this is maladministration as it was not reasonable for the deep clean to be delayed by over two months. Additionally, the cleaning record keeping was poor as the landlord did not have a clear schedule of what cleaning or inspections took place. Further, it is not reasonable that the landlord did not provide feedback to manage resident’s expectation.

Non resident’s use of car parking at the property

Part 1 of the tenancy agreement between the landlord and the resident states:
1. The right for the Tenant and all persons authorised by him in common with others enjoying the like right at all times for all purposes incidental to the occupation and enjoyment of the Property to pass on foot only over and along the pathways and pavements entrance hall staircases corridors and other common access ways in or to the Buildings coloured blue and grey on the said plan and with or without motor vehicles over and along the car parking areas coloured blue hatched black on the said plan.
The resident’s is concerned that the resident’s main car park is being used as a builder’s yard due to local building work taking place in the local area.
The resident has provided photographic evidence of the parking infringements to the landlord, also to the Ombudsman. As such the landlord visited the carpark on 8 December 2021 and identified cars parked without a permit.
The landlord in its stage two response explained that the car parking at the property has site parking enforcement managed by one of its contractors. The landlord confirmed that the carpark has signs stating parking is for residents only. Also, that the carpark is patrolled by its management company. The managing agent has a contract with a parking enforcement contractor called Parking Control Management (PCM). PCM is paid for by residents through payment of a service charge.
With this in mind, following the landlord’s inspection of the carpark on 8 December 2021 and any unidentified vehicles were reported to PCM.
In this case, the landlord would not be obliged to address concerns about individual parking issues although it would be reasonable for the landlord to forward any individual concerns to the parking management service on a resident’s behalf.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord forwarded the resident’s concerns to PCM and also sent pictures of non permit vehicles. This is confirmed in the landlord’s stage two complaint response.
Taking this into account, the landlord has acted in line with its obligations by communicating with the parking management service and has taken steps to carry out each of the resident’s requests highlighted in her original complaint. With this in mind, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns about parking.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a two stage complaint process and its complaint policy states the landlord will provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two final response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy (October 2020) notes that the landlord can make “discretionary payments”, in respect of “poor complaint handling, delays in providing our services such as repairs, failure to provide a service that we have charged for, temporary loss of amenity(ies) and failure to meet our target response times, such as missing a repair appointment where we have failed to attend.
The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It failed to provide its stage one response within 10 days. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 17 September 2021. For the stage one response to be in line with the landlord’s complaint process the resident should have responded by 30 September 2021. However, the stage one was issued on 18 October 2021, which was 12 working days late. Additionally, the landlord failed to provide a response to the resident’s complaint about the resident’s car park in its stage one response. This is not in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code,
In terms of communication as part of the complaint process, the resident says that since her housing manager changed, she has not had any contact. This Service notes that the landlord said in its stage two response dated 10 January 2022, that the new housing manager would contact the resident. The resident in her contact with this Service in May 2022 has said she was still waiting on contact.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acted proactively and the new housing manager to have contacted the resident in a timelier way. Particularly, considering the length of time that has now passed since the housing manager started the position on 30 September 2021.
As such, the unreasonable delay for the new manager to contact the resident to discuss her existing or any future concerns is a failure led to further inconvenience to the resident. With this in mind, the resident was left without clear resolution or agreed next steps. This was not customer centred in its approach.
In summary, the landlord had not acted in line with its policies and the Complaint Handling Code, when handling the resident’s stage one complaint. Additionally, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s complaint about car park in its stage one response. This would have been frustrating for the resident, and in the absence of an updated timeframe or explanation for the delay, amounted to maladministration. In the circumstances, an amount of £60 compensation is not appropriate to reflect the impact on the resident.
Overall, the total compensation offered as part of the overall complaint in the landlord stage one response is not reasonable.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its response regarding the resident’s complaint about communal cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there no maladministration by the landlord for its response regarding the resident’s complaint regarding non resident use of the car park.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord for its response regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns regarding the communal door within a reasonable timeframe, and its response was in line with its policies, which were reasonable and in line with what the Ombudsman would expect.
There was a delay in the landlord completing a yearly deep clean of the communal areas. The landlord had poor record keeping regarding communal cleaning schedule and was able to provide information around this to resident’s and effectively managed expectations.
The landlord’s response to non permit vehicles using the resident’s carpark was appropriate. The landlord acted in line with its obligations by communicating with the parking management service and has taken steps to carry out each of the resident’s requests highlighted in her original complaint.
The landlord failed to follow its complaint procedure by not issuing its stage one complaint response in line with its own complaint policy. Additionally, the landlord was not proactive in arranging contact from the new housing manager and the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should comply with the following and provide evidence to this Service:
1. Pay the resident a further £350 in compensation based on:
  1. £200 for inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident due to its handling of communal cleaning.
  2. £150 for the impact the delays had on the resident from its complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take the following action:
1. The landlord undertakes a formal review of its record keeping practices, to ensure quality records are kept of its cleaning logs and schedules.
2. Review its complaints policy to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
3. For the new housing manager to contact the resident within four weeks to introduce themselves and discuss any concerns the resident has.