The Guinness Partnership Limited (202203209)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202203209
The Guinness Partnership Limited
22 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 is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs have been completed.
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning.
- The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
Scope of the investigation
- The resident has contended that there are undue service charge costs to which he should receive a refund. The Service has not sought to determine the level of resident’s service charge as it does not have the power to do this. The First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber (FTT) may be able to make a binding determination on the resident’s liability to pay his service charge and whether it has been reasonably incurred. When investigating this complaint, the Service has focussed on how the landlord has communicated about the service charge and responded to the resident’s queries. This includes considering how it responded to alleged errors in the accounts and the content and timeliness of information provided.
Background.
- The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord. His property is a one bedroom, second floor flat in a block within a scheme. There are 16 blocks on the estate. The landlord levies service charges across the scheme rather than on each individual block within that scheme, therefore the cost for any services received by any one block is shared equally between each block.
- The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1 – Investigation and Resolution and Stage 2 – Escalation within Guinness. At both stages, it should provide the complainant with its decision on whether the complaint is upheld. If the complaint is upheld, it should make clear what action it proposes to resolve it.
- At Stage 1 the response should be sent within 10 working days of receipt and at Stage 2 it should send the response within 20 working days. At either stage, if there is good reason for not meeting the timeframe, it should provide an explanation to the resident and provide a revised date for the response which should not exceed a further 10 working days.
- The landlord’s Compensation Policy states “We may offer a compensation payment in recognition of loss or damage and for distress and inconvenience caused when something has gone wrong, and Guinness is at fault. This type of compensation aims to restore the customer to the position they would have been in had the failure or omission not occurred. The policy provides the following payment schedule:
- “Up to £250 – The issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household.
- £250-£700 – The issue took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstrable impact on the customer or the household.
- £700+ – The issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience having significant impact on the customer or the household which is likely to caused longer-term distress.”
- The Estate Management Policy states:
- “We will undertake a visual health and safety evaluation of both communal areas and the external areas of customers’ properties during each estate inspection and/or during each visit to an estate.”
- “In order to keep communal areas safe and secure we will aim that repairs are completed in accordance with our agreed service standards.”
- The landlord’s Service Charge policy states:
- “Our service charges include the cost of all legally eligible expenditure attributable to a scheme or home to the extent that these costs are not deemed under the tenancy agreement or lease to be included within the rent paid.”
- “For tenants who pay a variable service charge, the charge is set based on our best assessment of expected costs. At the end of the year, we will reconcile payments to the cost of services provided and add any overpayments or underpayments to the following year’s account.”
- The landlord has advised that there are 2 flats in a neighbouring block that were previously used as guest rooms. The landlord agreed that the NHS could set up a surgery there and the NHS took over the use of the neighbouring flats on 1 October 2017. The NHS refurbished the flats and they are self contained with no shared facilities with the rest of the block or scheme.
Summary of Events
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs have been completed
- On 13 August 2021 the landlord sent to its contractor a location plan and photos of 11 areas where pothole / tarmac repairs were required at the resident’s estate. It asked for a quote to carry out the following repairs:
- Cut the boundaries of the patch with a diamond blade or spade bit.
- Remove water / debris from the pothole/ area.
- Square up the sides of the area until edges are sound.
- Apply a tack coat of asphalt emulsion to the sides and bottom of the hole.
- Place the patch material in the hole and overfill by 20-25% and feather in the edges.
- Compact the patch material using a vibrating roller or similar.
- The finished patch should have a 3-6mm crown to allow for further compaction and prevent standing water.
- The patched area to be seamed with a crack sealant.
- On 23 September 2021 the landlord accepted a quote for patch repairs to the tarmac road surface at the resident’s estate.
- After completion of the works the landlord carried out a post-inspection on 1 February 2022. Its internal correspondence confirms that it signed the works off as satisfactorily completed and received completion photos from the contractor.
- On 17 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. He noted that the landlord’s subcontractor had tarmacked the estate road which had potholes. However, the subcontractor had only used hand tools “leaving very poor quality work completed and other parts of the road not done at all”. The resident also noted that no work had been done to the pathway which had numerous broken concrete slabs and quarry tiles which presented trip hazards. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 April 2022.
- In correspondence prior to a formal complaint response, on 12 April 2022 the landlord advised that a post inspection was carried out on 1 February 2022 and that images provided confirmed that the works had been completed. Therefore, it would not be able to recall the contractor. However, it was arranging for the road and paving to be reassessed.
- On 13 April 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response.
- It noted that its surveyor completed a post-inspection of works which confirmed that the works were completed to an acceptable standard. A further post-inspection confirmed that no further repairs or maintenance were required therefore it would not recover the cost of the works from the contractor.
- It had requested a member of staff arrange an appointment with the resident to assess problems he was facing.
- The resident escalated the road complaint the same day questioning the competency of the surveyor who signed off the works as satisfactory. He advised that there were a few places where the tarmac was inadequate and other places where tarmacking had not been attempted at all.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence when investigating the escalated complaint shows that another senior manager confirmed on 28 April 2022 that all works carried out by the surveyor had been carried out and post-inspected.
- On 29 April 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It advised that:
- following the complaint escalation, two senior staff members with responsibility for repairs had confirmed that they were satisfied with the repairs. It therefore would not be completing any further repairs.
- it would not now complete a walkaround to further check the repairs as the senior staff members would not authorise the work.
- The resident responded to the Stage 2 response on the same day reiterating that the operatives should have used larger machines than handheld machines. He contended that after he escalated his complaint, the surveyor who approved the works had phoned him stating that he had only approved the works on a temporary basis and senior management had agreed to a “proper repair” using heavy duty machinery that financial year.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning
- On 9 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint by phone about his service charge. The landlord noted that he was challenging 19 charges with the main ones being:
- A charge for air conditioning and ventilation which the resident stated flats do not have. The service charge letter showed this for the NHS surgery.
- Automatic doors/Gates and Barriers.
- There was a playground charge of £1400 but no work had been done.
- The 16 blocks on the estate had lamps on the outside of the building which were controlled from old timers. Lights were staying on all day and night. An engineer had previously stated that the old timers were faulty and should be replaced with photo electric switch.
- £2,000 for tree works.
- The resident also sent an email of 9 March 2022 stating in 2021 he “was told that the inaccurate items on the service charge bill 2021-22 (e.g. non-existent services like air conditioning & ventilation & automatic gates/Barriers) were due to mistakes by the housing officer and that they would be rectified & reimbursed. The service charge bill sent for 2022-23 contains the same charges as mentioned above! I have been advised repeatedly that the housing officer- or CLO- would contact me and also arrange a meeting but this hasn’t happened. Apart from the bogus charges on the service charge schedule there are also highly suspect charges (e.g., £1,398 on playground, Tree works £2,060, Communal TV aerials £3,904.00, fly tipping removal £4,115.0) and furthermore an astronomical cost for communal electricity of £28,824.00”.
- On 11 March 2022 the landlord raised a repair order with a target date of 8 April 2022. The order stated “16 blocks on estate, lamps on the outside of the building are controlled from old timers – these lights are staying on all day and night. previously advised old faulty timers need replaced photo electric switch”. On 21 March 2021 the landlord’s electrical contractor attended the resident’s block. The operative reported that he needed more details on this job as he had asked a few tenants, and no one knew of the repairs.
- On 30 March and 8 April 2022, the landlord sent holding responses to the resident’s complaint. On 11 April 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response.
- It confirmed that Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems charges had been removed and new amended statements would be sent the following week.
- It confirmed that there were no Automatic Doors, Gates, and Barriers for the resident’s block, so this had been removed from his Rent and Service Charge Statement. It had requested that previous statements were reviewed so that incorrect charges could be amended and residents advised of the outcome.
- The charge of £1,398 for playground charges was an estimate for 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023 comprising £397.76 servicing costs and £998.68 repairs cost. If no repairs were carried out this would be adjusted accordingly on the Actuals Statement which would be issued in September 2022. Similarly, a £2,060 charge for Tree Works/Landscaping Charges was an estimate and would be adjusted if too high or low.
- Its engineer when attending to repair the communal lights on 21 March 2022 found that they were working correctly. During his visit he spoke to several customers who were not aware of a repair being required. It would raise a new repair if the resident reported that the lights were still coming on during the day.
- Regarding other charges, the communal TV aerial was a contingency budget, the fly tipping spend in 2020/21 was £3,265.00 therefore the estimate costs of 2022-23 was a similar amount. Regarding electricity, the previous year’s spend was £23,964 due to the nationwide costs of utility bills nationwide, and it had increased this by £4,000 to cover the full scheme.
- It offered £120 compensation which comprised:
- £75 to apologise for the unreasonable delays to have the statement amended and for the stress and inconvenience caused.
- £25 for the poor communication and failure to keep our promises.
- £20 to acknowledge my delay in providing you with a written response to your complaint.
- The resident responded the same day:
- He stated that air conditioning charges accrued after two flats in a neighbouring block were given to the NHS for use a surgery several years previously therefore a total refund should be calculated. He noted that he had raised the issue before.
- He stated he failed to see how the costs underlying the playground equipment charge could accrue and asking if they could be itemised. He noted that there were only 3 items: a swing, slide and climbing frame and an adjected football pitch.
- He reiterated his position that the communal lights came on in the day and suggested that the landlord calculate how many hours use would result in a “cost of £78.96 per day (ie “28,824 per annum)”, taking account of the number of lights and the unit cost of electricity. The resident also suggested that the landlord replace mechanical timers with photoelectric sensors on the roof of each block.
- On 12 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation and advised that it had raised a further repair for the communal lights which had been booked for 29 April 2021.
- On 25 May 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It upheld the Stage 1 response stating that the member of staff who sent the response had responded to each concern appropriately and gave an efficient update and resolution. It added that it had spoken to several neighbours who did not believe there to be issues with the communal light. It further noted that she had made the necessary adjustments to the service charge and offered appropriate redress that acknowledged the resident’s inconvenience. The landlord offered a further £30 compensation to the £120 offered at Stage 1 in respect of the time taken to send the Stage 2 response.
- On 20 June 2022 the operative reattended the resident’s estate to repair communal lights. The operative reported that he “gained access to 9 out of the 11 blocks. 4 time clocks per block. Found 2 faulty time clocks. No access to [to 2 blocks]. Materials required. Follow on appointment for 4 hrs to get Materials for faults and access via caretaker to…”
- The electrical contractor attended the estate again on 6 July 2021 and 19 July 2021. The operative noted that he “renewed 2 time clocks, rest time clocks in [a block]. Checked all other time clocks. Left in working order”.
- In correspondence, including emails sent on 9 June 2022 and 8 August 2022, the resident referred his complaint to the Service. He stated:
- The landlord had refused to resolve the ongoing problem of external estate lights which for many years had been on at various blocks during the day. He disputed that the landlord was not aware of a problem, especially as there was a warden on duty.
- The landlord had obfuscated the servicing (£397.76) and repairs (£999.68) charges for playground repair/maintenance as it had not provided itemised costs.
- A refund of 17p per week for false air conditioning should be backdated beyond May 2022 as it had “been a false charge for at least 2 years”.
- the landlord should have resurfaced the entire estate road, but only worked on a fraction. The subcontractor did not have the correct machinery.
- On 13 September 2022 the landlord sent the actual service charge statement for 2021-22. The statement confirmed that the actual playground cost for 2021-22 was £496.80 therefore while the estimated cost for him was £3.92, the actual cost was £1.41. The statement also confirmed that the actual cost for tree works/landscaping cost for 2021-22 was £1,248 therefore while the estimated cost for him was £5.70, the actual cost was £3.56.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs have been completed
- It is evident from the landlord’s request for a quote in 2021 that it considered there were areas of the roads in the resident’s estate that were in poor condition. It identified that patch repairs would be sufficient at that time rather that the wholescale resurfacing of the road. While the resident may disagree with the limited scope of the works and consider repairs should also be carried out to the path, as the landlord had inspected the roads and identified areas that it considered required repairing at that time, it acted appropriately.
- A surveyor carried out an inspection of the works that were carried out on 1 February 2021. Another senior member of staff inspected the works and obtained photos to confirm that remedial works were completed. As both members of staff were responsible for assessing the works and did this, the landlord took appropriate steps to confirm that the works were satisfactorily completed.
- After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord sought the view of another senior member of staff. In doing so the landlord took further steps to ensure that the works were completed in line with the specification and to an acceptable standard.
- The landlord initially agreed to visit the estate and meet the resident onsite but rescinded the offer. It was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of staff with responsibility for managing repairs and was not obliged to meet the resident. However, by rescinding the offer, it missed an opportunity to further justify the decision it had reached, and therefore to possibly resolve the complaint. The service therefore makes a recommendation that the landlord offers to check the repairs carried out with the resident.
- The resident advised that the surveyor told him that the works were temporary, and that larger scale works would follow. There is no evidence to corroborate that this was the landlord’s position. In fact, its internal correspondence indicates that tarmac hardstanding is not due to be reviewed for future planned works until 2052.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning
- The resident has a variable service charge as introduced by Section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This allows the landlord to cover the costs for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements and insurance, as well as management costs. Costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. The landlord’s policy reflects its legal obligation to reconcile the expected costs that a service charge covered with the actual costs of services provided and to make adjustments to the to the following year’s account.
- The resident raised several queries about his service charge for 2021-22 through making a complaint. The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure charges were correct and therefore to resolve his complaint. Specifically, it accepted the charges for air conditioning and ventilation were erroneous and automatic doors/gates and barriers were erroneous and removed them. The landlord also took steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about the level of charges for the playground and tree works by explaining that they were based on estimated costs and that the service charge would be adjusted based on the actual costs. The service charge statement of September 2022 confirmed that it subsequently took this action. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about the charges for communal TV aerials, fly-tipping and communal electricity by outlining what information had been considered when setting the charge.
- The resident raised a particular concern that communal lights on the estate were not functioning as intended as they stayed on all the time. He related this to paying a higher than necessary charge for communal electricity. The landlord took appropriate action to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it raised a repair order and a contractor attended to check and repair/reset the lights in the blocks over several visits. It is understandable that the resident may want sensor lights installed as a resolution to this issue; however, the landlord is not obliged to complete improvement works, and in any case, it may need to consult as there may be charge for these works that some residents have to pay.
- While the landlord addressed the service charge queries generally, there were particular aspects of the resident’s complaint that it failed to respond to. The resident asked for itemised details of the costs incurred that underlay the estimated playground charge of £1,398. Had the landlord provided this information it could have resolved his concerns about the playground charge at the time. The resident also believed that he had paid a service charge for air conditioning in previous years which he should not have, and which therefore should be refunded. Given that it had accepted there was an error in the charge for that year, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not confirm its position on whether there had been an incorrect charge for air conditioning in previous years, and if so whether this had been rectified. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s request that it break down the daily cost of running the communal lights as requested, or otherwise providing further details on how costs for communal electricity had accrued. It therefore missed an opportunity to allay the resident’s concerns about the communal electricity charge.
Complaint Handling
- With regards to the resident’s complaint about tarmacking repairs the landlord did not send the Stage 1 response within the required timeframe of 10 working days or indicate withing that timeframe that it required an extension. There was a delay of 9 working days but it did not offer redress for the delay. The Stage 2 response was sent within the required timeframe of 20 working days and therefore not delayed.
- With regards to the resident’s complaint about his service charge, the landlord did not send the Stage 1 response within the required timeframe. However, it offered compensation which was proportionate to the length of the delay, 12 working days, and the fact that it had sent holding responses to manage the resident’s expectations. The Stage 2 response was delayed by 10 working days. Again, the landlord provided redress for this by offering compensation proportionate to the delay.
- The landlord also offered compensation totalling £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident from the errors in the service charge statement and for poor communication. However, this award was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint as it did not reflect the aspects of the resident’s complaint, outlined above, that the landlord did not respond to. Taken together with the omission to offer redress for the Stage 1 delay in the tarmacking complaint, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs had been completed.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
Reasons
- The landlord ordered patch repairs for the estate road surface. It took appropriate steps to confirm that the works were satisfactorily completed.
- The landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint about his service charge. It did not respond to his request for itemised costs which underlay the playground charge. It did not address the resident’s claim that he had previously been charged incorrectly for air conditioning. It also did not respond to his request to break down the cost for communal lights.
Orders and recommendations
- Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise to the resident for the failure identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £100 compensation comprising:
- £25 for the delay in sending the Stage 1 response to the complaint about the tarmacking of the road.
- £75 for failings in its responses to the complaint about service charges.
- Write to the resident to confirm whether it had previously incorrectly charged him for communal electricity and to provide details of the costs which underlay the playground charge.
- It is recommended that the landlord write to the resident with a calculation of the daily cost of running the communal lights, or otherwise provide further details on how costs for communal electricity had accrued.
The complaint
- The complaint is about:
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs have been completed.
- The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning.
- The Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
Scope of the investigation
- The resident has contended that there are undue service charge costs to which he should receive a refund. The Service has not sought to determine the level of resident’s service charge as it does not have the power to do this. The First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber (FTT) may be able to make a binding determination on the resident’s liability to pay his service charge and whether it has been reasonably incurred. When investigating this complaint, the Service has focussed on how the landlord has communicated about the service charge and responded to the resident’s queries. This includes considering how it responded to alleged errors in the accounts and the content and timeliness of information provided.
Background.
- The resident is a joint assured tenant of the landlord. His property is a one bedroom, second floor flat in a block within a scheme. There are 16 blocks on the estate. The landlord levies service charges across the scheme rather than on each individual block within that scheme, therefore the cost for any services received by any one block is shared equally between each block.
- The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure. At Stage 1 – Investigation and Resolution and Stage 2 – Escalation within Guinness. At both stages, it should provide the complainant with its decision on whether the complaint is upheld. If the complaint is upheld, it should make clear what action it proposes to resolve it.
- At Stage 1 the response should be sent within 10 working days of receipt and at Stage 2 it should send the response within 20 working days. At either stage, if there is good reason for not meeting the timeframe, it should provide an explanation to the resident and provide a revised date for the response which should not exceed a further 10 working days.
- The landlord’s Compensation Policy states “We may offer a compensation payment in recognition of loss or damage and for distress and inconvenience caused when something has gone wrong, and Guinness is at fault. This type of compensation aims to restore the customer to the position they would have been in had the failure or omission not occurred. The policy provides the following payment schedule:
- “Up to £250 – The issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household.
- £250-£700 – The issue took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstrable impact on the customer or the household.
- £700+ – The issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience having significant impact on the customer or the household which is likely to caused longer-term distress.”
- The Estate Management Policy states:
- “We will undertake a visual health and safety evaluation of both communal areas and the external areas of customers’ properties during each estate inspection and/or during each visit to an estate.”
- “In order to keep communal areas safe and secure we will aim that repairs are completed in accordance with our agreed service standards.”
- The landlord’s Service Charge policy states:
- “Our service charges include the cost of all legally eligible expenditure attributable to a scheme or home to the extent that these costs are not deemed under the tenancy agreement or lease to be included within the rent paid.”
- “For tenants who pay a variable service charge, the charge is set based on our best assessment of expected costs. At the end of the year, we will reconcile payments to the cost of services provided and add any overpayments or underpayments to the following year’s account.”
- The landlord has advised that there are 2 flats in a neighbouring block that were previously used as guest rooms. The landlord agreed that the NHS could set up a surgery there and the NHS took over the use of the neighbouring flats on 1 October 2017. The NHS refurbished the flats and they are self contained with no shared facilities with the rest of the block or scheme.
Summary of Events
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs have been completed
- On 13 August 2021 the landlord sent to its contractor a location plan and photos of 11 areas where pothole / tarmac repairs were required at the resident’s estate. It asked for a quote to carry out the following repairs:
- Cut the boundaries of the patch with a diamond blade or spade bit.
- Remove water / debris from the pothole/ area.
- Square up the sides of the area until edges are sound.
- Apply a tack coat of asphalt emulsion to the sides and bottom of the hole.
- Place the patch material in the hole and overfill by 20-25% and feather in the edges.
- Compact the patch material using a vibrating roller or similar.
- The finished patch should have a 3-6mm crown to allow for further compaction and prevent standing water.
- The patched area to be seamed with a crack sealant.
- On 23 September 2021 the landlord accepted a quote for patch repairs to the tarmac road surface at the resident’s estate.
- After completion of the works the landlord carried out a post-inspection on 1 February 2022. Its internal correspondence confirms that it signed the works off as satisfactorily completed and received completion photos from the contractor.
- On 17 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint. He noted that the landlord’s subcontractor had tarmacked the estate road which had potholes. However, the subcontractor had only used hand tools “leaving very poor quality work completed and other parts of the road not done at all”. The resident also noted that no work had been done to the pathway which had numerous broken concrete slabs and quarry tiles which presented trip hazards. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint until 12 April 2022.
- In correspondence prior to a formal complaint response, on 12 April 2022 the landlord advised that a post inspection was carried out on 1 February 2022 and that images provided confirmed that the works had been completed. Therefore, it would not be able to recall the contractor. However, it was arranging for the road and paving to be reassessed.
- On 13 April 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response.
- It noted that its surveyor completed a post-inspection of works which confirmed that the works were completed to an acceptable standard. A further post-inspection confirmed that no further repairs or maintenance were required therefore it would not recover the cost of the works from the contractor.
- It had requested a member of staff arrange an appointment with the resident to assess problems he was facing.
- The resident escalated the road complaint the same day questioning the competency of the surveyor who signed off the works as satisfactory. He advised that there were a few places where the tarmac was inadequate and other places where tarmacking had not been attempted at all.
- The landlord’s internal correspondence when investigating the escalated complaint shows that another senior manager confirmed on 28 April 2022 that all works carried out by the surveyor had been carried out and post-inspected.
- On 29 April 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It advised that:
- following the complaint escalation, two senior staff members with responsibility for repairs had confirmed that they were satisfied with the repairs. It therefore would not be completing any further repairs.
- it would not now complete a walkaround to further check the repairs as the senior staff members would not authorise the work.
- The resident responded to the Stage 2 response on the same day reiterating that the operatives should have used larger machines than handheld machines. He contended that after he escalated his complaint, the surveyor who approved the works had phoned him stating that he had only approved the works on a temporary basis and senior management had agreed to a “proper repair” using heavy duty machinery that financial year.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning
- On 9 March 2022, the resident raised a complaint by phone about his service charge. The landlord noted that he was challenging 19 charges with the main ones being:
- A charge for air conditioning and ventilation which the resident stated flats do not have. The service charge letter showed this for the NHS surgery.
- Automatic doors/Gates and Barriers.
- There was a playground charge of £1400 but no work had been done.
- The 16 blocks on the estate had lamps on the outside of the building which were controlled from old timers. Lights were staying on all day and night. An engineer had previously stated that the old timers were faulty and should be replaced with photo electric switch.
- £2,000 for tree works.
- The resident also sent an email of 9 March 2022 stating in 2021 he “was told that the inaccurate items on the service charge bill 2021-22 (e.g. non-existent services like air conditioning & ventilation & automatic gates/Barriers) were due to mistakes by the housing officer and that they would be rectified & reimbursed. The service charge bill sent for 2022-23 contains the same charges as mentioned above! I have been advised repeatedly that the housing officer- or CLO- would contact me and also arrange a meeting but this hasn’t happened. Apart from the bogus charges on the service charge schedule there are also highly suspect charges (e.g., £1,398 on playground, Tree works £2,060, Communal TV aerials £3,904.00, fly tipping removal £4,115.0) and furthermore an astronomical cost for communal electricity of £28,824.00”.
- On 11 March 2022 the landlord raised a repair order with a target date of 8 April 2022. The order stated “16 blocks on estate, lamps on the outside of the building are controlled from old timers – these lights are staying on all day and night. previously advised old faulty timers need replaced photo electric switch”. On 21 March 2021 the landlord’s electrical contractor attended the resident’s block. The operative reported that he needed more details on this job as he had asked a few tenants, and no one knew of the repairs.
- On 30 March and 8 April 2022, the landlord sent holding responses to the resident’s complaint. On 11 April 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response.
- It confirmed that Air Conditioning and Ventilation Systems charges had been removed and new amended statements would be sent the following week.
- It confirmed that there were no Automatic Doors, Gates, and Barriers for the resident’s block, so this had been removed from his Rent and Service Charge Statement. It had requested that previous statements were reviewed so that incorrect charges could be amended and residents advised of the outcome.
- The charge of £1,398 for playground charges was an estimate for 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023 comprising £397.76 servicing costs and £998.68 repairs cost. If no repairs were carried out this would be adjusted accordingly on the Actuals Statement which would be issued in September 2022. Similarly, a £2,060 charge for Tree Works/Landscaping Charges was an estimate and would be adjusted if too high or low.
- Its engineer when attending to repair the communal lights on 21 March 2022 found that they were working correctly. During his visit he spoke to several customers who were not aware of a repair being required. It would raise a new repair if the resident reported that the lights were still coming on during the day.
- Regarding other charges, the communal TV aerial was a contingency budget, the fly tipping spend in 2020/21 was £3,265.00 therefore the estimate costs of 2022-23 was a similar amount. Regarding electricity, the previous year’s spend was £23,964 due to the nationwide costs of utility bills nationwide, and it had increased this by £4,000 to cover the full scheme.
- It offered £120 compensation which comprised:
- £75 to apologise for the unreasonable delays to have the statement amended and for the stress and inconvenience caused.
- £25 for the poor communication and failure to keep our promises.
- £20 to acknowledge my delay in providing you with a written response to your complaint.
- The resident responded the same day:
- He stated that air conditioning charges accrued after two flats in a neighbouring block were given to the NHS for use a surgery several years previously therefore a total refund should be calculated. He noted that he had raised the issue before.
- He stated he failed to see how the costs underlying the playground equipment charge could accrue and asking if they could be itemised. He noted that there were only 3 items: a swing, slide and climbing frame and an adjected football pitch.
- He reiterated his position that the communal lights came on in the day and suggested that the landlord calculate how many hours use would result in a “cost of £78.96 per day (ie “28,824 per annum)”, taking account of the number of lights and the unit cost of electricity. The resident also suggested that the landlord replace mechanical timers with photoelectric sensors on the roof of each block.
- On 12 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation and advised that it had raised a further repair for the communal lights which had been booked for 29 April 2021.
- On 25 May 2022 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response. It upheld the Stage 1 response stating that the member of staff who sent the response had responded to each concern appropriately and gave an efficient update and resolution. It added that it had spoken to several neighbours who did not believe there to be issues with the communal light. It further noted that she had made the necessary adjustments to the service charge and offered appropriate redress that acknowledged the resident’s inconvenience. The landlord offered a further £30 compensation to the £120 offered at Stage 1 in respect of the time taken to send the Stage 2 response.
- On 20 June 2022 the operative reattended the resident’s estate to repair communal lights. The operative reported that he “gained access to 9 out of the 11 blocks. 4 time clocks per block. Found 2 faulty time clocks. No access to [to 2 blocks]. Materials required. Follow on appointment for 4 hrs to get Materials for faults and access via caretaker to…”
- The electrical contractor attended the estate again on 6 July 2021 and 19 July 2021. The operative noted that he “renewed 2 time clocks, rest time clocks in [a block]. Checked all other time clocks. Left in working order”.
- In correspondence, including emails sent on 9 June 2022 and 8 August 2022, the resident referred his complaint to the Service. He stated:
- The landlord had refused to resolve the ongoing problem of external estate lights which for many years had been on at various blocks during the day. He disputed that the landlord was not aware of a problem, especially as there was a warden on duty.
- The landlord had obfuscated the servicing (£397.76) and repairs (£999.68) charges for playground repair/maintenance as it had not provided itemised costs.
- A refund of 17p per week for false air conditioning should be backdated beyond May 2022 as it had “been a false charge for at least 2 years”.
- the landlord should have resurfaced the entire estate road, but only worked on a fraction. The subcontractor did not have the correct machinery.
- On 13 September 2022 the landlord sent the actual service charge statement for 2021-22. The statement confirmed that the actual playground cost for 2021-22 was £496.80 therefore while the estimated cost for him was £3.92, the actual cost was £1.41. The statement also confirmed that the actual cost for tree works/landscaping cost for 2021-22 was £1,248 therefore while the estimated cost for him was £5.70, the actual cost was £3.56.
Assessment and findings
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs have been completed
- It is evident from the landlord’s request for a quote in 2021 that it considered there were areas of the roads in the resident’s estate that were in poor condition. It identified that patch repairs would be sufficient at that time rather that the wholescale resurfacing of the road. While the resident may disagree with the limited scope of the works and consider repairs should also be carried out to the path, as the landlord had inspected the roads and identified areas that it considered required repairing at that time, it acted appropriately.
- A surveyor carried out an inspection of the works that were carried out on 1 February 2021. Another senior member of staff inspected the works and obtained photos to confirm that remedial works were completed. As both members of staff were responsible for assessing the works and did this, the landlord took appropriate steps to confirm that the works were satisfactorily completed.
- After the resident escalated the complaint, the landlord sought the view of another senior member of staff. In doing so the landlord took further steps to ensure that the works were completed in line with the specification and to an acceptable standard.
- The landlord initially agreed to visit the estate and meet the resident onsite but rescinded the offer. It was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of staff with responsibility for managing repairs and was not obliged to meet the resident. However, by rescinding the offer, it missed an opportunity to further justify the decision it had reached, and therefore to possibly resolve the complaint. The service therefore makes a recommendation that the landlord offers to check the repairs carried out with the resident.
- The resident advised that the surveyor told him that the works were temporary, and that larger scale works would follow. There is no evidence to corroborate that this was the landlord’s position. In fact, its internal correspondence indicates that tarmac hardstanding is not due to be reviewed for future planned works until 2052.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning
- The resident has a variable service charge as introduced by Section 18 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This allows the landlord to cover the costs for services, repairs, maintenance, improvements and insurance, as well as management costs. Costs are relevant costs in relation to a service charge whether they are incurred, or to be incurred, in the period for which the service charge is payable or in an earlier or later period. The landlord’s policy reflects its legal obligation to reconcile the expected costs that a service charge covered with the actual costs of services provided and to make adjustments to the to the following year’s account.
- The resident raised several queries about his service charge for 2021-22 through making a complaint. The landlord took appropriate steps to ensure charges were correct and therefore to resolve his complaint. Specifically, it accepted the charges for air conditioning and ventilation were erroneous and automatic doors/gates and barriers were erroneous and removed them. The landlord also took steps to resolve the resident’s concerns about the level of charges for the playground and tree works by explaining that they were based on estimated costs and that the service charge would be adjusted based on the actual costs. The service charge statement of September 2022 confirmed that it subsequently took this action. The landlord also addressed the resident’s concerns about the charges for communal TV aerials, fly-tipping and communal electricity by outlining what information had been considered when setting the charge.
- The resident raised a particular concern that communal lights on the estate were not functioning as intended as they stayed on all the time. He related this to paying a higher than necessary charge for communal electricity. The landlord took appropriate action to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint as it raised a repair order and a contractor attended to check and repair/reset the lights in the blocks over several visits. It is understandable that the resident may want sensor lights installed as a resolution to this issue; however, the landlord is not obliged to complete improvement works, and in any case, it may need to consult as there may be charge for these works that some residents have to pay.
- While the landlord addressed the service charge queries generally, there were particular aspects of the resident’s complaint that it failed to respond to. The resident asked for itemised details of the costs incurred that underlay the estimated playground charge of £1,398. Had the landlord provided this information it could have resolved his concerns about the playground charge at the time. The resident also believed that he had paid a service charge for air conditioning in previous years which he should not have, and which therefore should be refunded. Given that it had accepted there was an error in the charge for that year, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not confirm its position on whether there had been an incorrect charge for air conditioning in previous years, and if so whether this had been rectified. The landlord also did not respond to the resident’s request that it break down the daily cost of running the communal lights as requested, or otherwise providing further details on how costs for communal electricity had accrued. It therefore missed an opportunity to allay the resident’s concerns about the communal electricity charge.
Complaint Handling
- With regards to the resident’s complaint about tarmacking repairs the landlord did not send the Stage 1 response within the required timeframe of 10 working days or indicate withing that timeframe that it required an extension. There was a delay of 9 working days but it did not offer redress for the delay. The Stage 2 response was sent within the required timeframe of 20 working days and therefore not delayed.
- With regards to the resident’s complaint about his service charge, the landlord did not send the Stage 1 response within the required timeframe. However, it offered compensation which was proportionate to the length of the delay, 12 working days, and the fact that it had sent holding responses to manage the resident’s expectations. The Stage 2 response was delayed by 10 working days. Again, the landlord provided redress for this by offering compensation proportionate to the delay.
- The landlord also offered compensation totalling £100 for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident from the errors in the service charge statement and for poor communication. However, this award was not fully proportionate to the circumstances of the complaint as it did not reflect the aspects of the resident’s complaint, outlined above, that the landlord did not respond to. Taken together with the omission to offer redress for the Stage 1 delay in the tarmacking complaint, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaints handling.
Determination (decision)
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the standard to which tarmacking repairs had been completed.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s service charge enquires, particularly concerning the service charges for external estate lights, playground repair/maintenance and air conditioning.
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
Reasons
- The landlord ordered patch repairs for the estate road surface. It took appropriate steps to confirm that the works were satisfactorily completed.
- The landlord did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint about his service charge. It did not respond to his request for itemised costs which underlay the playground charge. It did not address the resident’s claim that he had previously been charged incorrectly for air conditioning. It also did not respond to his request to break down the cost for communal lights.
Orders and recommendations
- Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
- Apologise to the resident for the failure identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £150 compensation comprising:
- £50 for poor complaints handling;
- £75 to apologise for the unreasonable delays to having the statement amended and for the stress and inconvenience caused;
- £25 for the poor communication and failure to keep its promises.
- write to the resident with a calculation of the daily cost of running the communal lights, or otherwise provide further details on how costs for communal electricity had accrued. The landlord must also provide details of repairs completed to the playground area. The landlord must ensure it includes:
- Itemised details of the costs incurred that underlay the charges related to the playground.
- A break down the daily cost of running the communal lights.
- assess whether any failure to ensure repairs to the lights were completed resulted in increased costs to run the communal lights. The landlord must provide the results of this assessment to both the resident and this Service. In the event it is established that additional costs were incurred due to this, the landlord should consider if a rebate and/or further compensation would be appropriate.