The Riverside Group Limited (202000460)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000460

The Riverside Group Limited

29 July 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Request for repairs and works, including internal and communal repairs and works pursuant to a legionella inspection, and a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA).
  2. Request for a copy of the FRA report.
  3. Queries regarding services charges, including gardening services and management charges and a refund relating to a fire panel and a refund relating to a fire panel.
  4. Subject Access Request (SAR).
  5. Queries relating to a threat of legal action regarding a Gas Safety Certificate (GSC).
2. The landlord’s complaint handling, including a cancelled complaint and request for compensation.

Scope of this investigation

In relation to the following complaints, the Ombudsman will investigate these complaints insofar as it concerns the service and response the landlord provided to the resident in relation to his requests for information. However, the Ombudsman has not investigated the substantive aspects of the following complaints:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a refund of service charge relating to a fire panel.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s query regarding service charges for gardening services and management charges.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s SAR request.
This is because they concern issues outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that:
1. Under paragraph 39(g), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
2. Under paragraph 39(i), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
3. Under paragraph 39(m), the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
Where requests were made under the Data Protection Act 2019, the Ombudsman considers that the handling of such requests falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 39(m), as that aspect would be for the Information Commissioners Office (ICO) to review as it is the specialist body.
The aspects of the resident’s complaints which concern service charges fall within the remit of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and are therefore a matter of law and for consideration by the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (“FTT”). It is not the role of the Ombudsman to make determinations that require a legal analysis of principles of law and a forensic study of evidence.

Other matters in relation to the scope of this investigation

The resident raised a number of reports by other residents. While the evidence indicated that the resident had authorisation from one of his neighbours to represent him, this was not a group complaint. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman has not investigated issues the resident raised about repairs which solely affected his neighbours.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied the property under an assured tenancy which began on 6 February 2019. The property consists of a one-bedroom, ground floor flat with a shared internal communal area. The resident paid variable service charges. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.

The legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had the following obligations:
1. To keep the structure and exterior of the resident’s property in repair including windows, doors, pathways and steps.
2. In the case of flats, to keep the shared areas in reasonable repair for which it could charge a service charge.
3. It was not responsible for insect infestations, unless it was due to its failure to comply with its repairing obligations.
The resident had an obligation to pay a service charge if services were provided. He also had an obligation allow access to the landlord into his home in order to inspect its condition, carry out repairs, and inspect and service any gas appliances. The agreement also stated that access was very important, especially with regarding to gas safety checks. If the resident did not allow access to their home, it could put the resident at risk and the landlord could apply to the court for an order ordering the resident to provide access.
The agreement gave the landlord the right to decide what services to provide and to increase or decrease it according to what services it provided. It set out the resident’s rights to query the charges and challenge them in the FTT.
On its website, the landlord set out as follows:
1. “At the start of the year we have to estimate how much the services will cost throughout the year, which is then shared out equally to all those who receive the services.
2. At the end of the year we look back over all the costs and if we have charged too much we will take the difference away from next year’s cost, and if we have not charged enough the extra amount will be added to the next year’s service charges. A small increase is applied each year in line with inflation but we always monitor and continue to improve our services to make sure we provide good value for money.”
Under the tenancy agreement, the resident had a contractual right to compensation up to a maximum of £50 if it failed to carry out “the work required” within the “prescribed” time limits. The landlord’s repair policy was more specific and had adopted the statutory Right to Repair for local authorities which set out the right applied to “certain qualifying repairs which, if not carried out within a specified period are likely to jeopardise the resident’s health, safety or security.” Those repairs included:
1. Unsafe access to property (e.g. path or step).
2. Insecure external window, door, lock.
3. Mechanical extractor fan in internal kitchen or bathroom not working, if there is no external window or door.
The resident also had a right in law to compensation if repairs were not carried out within a reasonable period, except where access is denied.
Under the complaints policy, the landlord defined a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The customer did not have to explicitly use the word ”complaint.” The procedure set out the steps the landlord should take on receipt of a complaint including acknowledging a complaint and providing a resolution plan, which it could extend and if the complaint was escalated, the landlord should provide a response within 10 working days of the request to escalate.
Under the compensation policy, compensation could be paid where the landlord failed to provide a service or meet its service standards. It could consist of an apology and/or compensation. Its compensation would be calculated in accordance with the severity of impact as follows:
1. Low Impact – the issue has caused minor inconvenience or distress £25-£50.
2. Medium Impact – the issue has inconvenienced or distressed the customer £50-£200.
The Right to Repair Financial Compensation is not payable if the customer has failed to give access for the repair to be carried out.
The landlord had categorised the resident as a vexatious complainant under the landlord’s ‘Unreasonable Behaviour Procedure” and had limited contact with the resident by providing one single point of contact for complaints. It asked the resident to put his complaints in writing.

Repair chronology

The landlord has provided this service with its repair records relating to the internal and external repairs raised by the resident. These records cover the years 2019, 2020, and 2021. A summary of these records is as follows:
1. There were a number of reports and repairs in relation to the communal doors sticking. Jobs were logged in 2019 and 2020 which were marked as complete. The resident reported on 4 February 2021 that the communal door needed a new closing mechanism. It had been shutting the day before, but not on that day. A job was logged on 6 February 2021 and marked as completed. According to the landlord’s records, it discussed a repair to the communal door lock with the resident on 22 March 2021 which was scheduled for repair for 24 March 2021. The resident did not provide access and the landlord intended to make alternative arrangements for access. A job to effect a repair was raised on 20 July 2021 and abandoned.
2. Jobs to the gutter overflowing were logged in 2019, 18 and 27 November 2020 and were marked as complete. On 26 November 2020, the landlord’s contractor cleaned out two elevations of gutter, unblocked a downpipe and fitted a new component. The job was recalled on 30 November 2020 but while the landlord identified other components required replacing, there was no evidence it was pursued except the job was allocated to its contractor on 15 January 2021. There was no evidence of further reports until 5 July 2021, however the landlord treated the job as outstanding since 27 November 2020.
3. Jobs had been logged in relation to untidy cables in the exterior areas on 22 May 2019, 7 and 14 January 2020, and 7 May 2020, which were all marked as completed. The resident reported on 4 February 2021 that a television cable in the garden should be removed. According to the repair records, aerial cables that were hanging down were tidied up on 26 January 2021 and the front area was on 2 February 2021 was “cleaned up” and a job raised to address the back on 11 February 2021.
4. On 7 January 2021, a job was logged that the wall around the kitchen window was “crumbling.” The work was marked as completed on 27 January 2021.
5. The resident raised an issue with the steps in the communal areas on 3 February 2021, following repairs that were undertaken in January 2021. The step outside the resident’s property had been missed out. It was inspected and a repair was raised on 8 February 2021. According to the landlord’s repair records, the repair to his step was effected or by 22 March 2021 and the complaint was closed on that date, following a telephone conversation with the resident. On 13 April 2021, the resident telephoned as he had received a notification by text his complaint regarding the step had been closed. He stated that a photograph was taken of a different step, the report had not been logged for nine days and the contractor had been rude. However, the issue did not progress through the landlord’s complaint procedure.
6. The resident reported the drinking water was “unsafe.” A job was raised to carry out an inspection on 23 March 2020 and was logged as complete but not dated.
7. A job was also logged following the resident reporting on 14 and 28 April 2021 that the bathroom vent was making the bathroom cold. The job was marked “abandoned.” The landlord’s notes stated that the landlord had attended on 28 April 2021 but had not been given access. On 2 May 2021, the resident reported that he had a wasps’ nest in his property near an air vent. He was unhappy that the landlord had referred him to the Environmental Health Team at the local authority as he would be charged. He also reported that the landlord had not attended to fit the cover on the vent. He did not want a repair to the vent.
8. Although the job was marked as completed on 7 May 2021, the landlord’s repair records stated that the contractor was unable to carry out the work to the vent due to the bees’ nest.
9. On 17 May 2021, the resident reported that pest control did not attend that day. The landlord tried to contact the contractor on his behalf. The resident said he would refuse any repairs until compensation was agreed. He would go to a hotel as he could not use the bathroom.
10. The pest control company stated it did not deal with bees’ nests. The job had been raised as wasps. The landlord considered contacting a local beekeeper. The resident said he had been reporting the missing vent cover for “years”. The following day, the landlord chased the repair to the vent cover.
11. On 24 May 2021, the resident reported that he was allergic to bees. On 26 May 2021, a job was raised to fit a vent cover externally. The job was marked as abandoned. The job to remove bees was marked as urgent also on 26 May 2021 and abandoned. A contractor attended on 27 May 2021 and concluded there was no bees’ nest.
12. According to an internal email 18 June 2012, the only outstanding job at the property was to fit a plastic vent over an airbrick. According to the job references, the repair to the vent was the same job referred to in response to the resident’s reports of 14 and 28 April 2021 and the landlord’s response of 28 April 2021.
13. A job marked “bathroom” was logged on 2 February 2021. There was no further explanation. A job to overhaul the bathroom extractor fan was raised on 20 July 2021 and marked as abandoned. It is not clear whether that related to the job to cover the vent/airbrick in the bathroom.
On 5 May 2021, a job was logged in relation to suspected damp in the resident’s kitchen. The job was marked as “abandoned” due to “input error.” The landlord/contractor attended the resident’s property on 14 July 2021 to inspect damp in the resident’s kitchen. It identified the cause due to an external downpipe and some damp plaster to the side of the boiler. The electrics were deemed safe. The landlord offered to repair the downpipe on 19 July 2021 and to replaster on 23 July 2021. The resident stated that the dates were not acceptable. There was no evidence of a report of damp to the bedroom prior to the inspection of 5 July 2021.

Chronology regarding the non-repair issues

The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 October 2020 to explain how it calculated and adjusted service charges and on 28 January 2021 stating it was still collating the information the resident was seeking and would respond 16 February 2021.
According to the landlord’s records, the resident raised the painting of the communal areas in a telephone conversation dated 4 February 2021, as well as issues to the door and cable referred to above.
Following contact by the resident, this service wrote to the landlord on 1 April 2021 asking that the landlord treat the following issues as a complaint if it had not already done so and respond within 10 working days:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs reported to them by the resident
2. He had been charged for services that the landlord had not provided.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 April 2021 that further to its letter of the 17 March 2021, it confirmed that all charges relating to the fire alarm equipment had been removed from the service charge budget for the financial year 2021-2022. The landlord has not provided the letter of 17 March 2021 to this service.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord noted that it had received a “further” complaint from the resident regarding a differential between the costs for gardening to different blocks. It noted that the costs did differ between the blocks even though they all shared a rear garden and had the same sort of frontage area, but the charges varied by a few pounds. He was also querying the “depreciation costs of 21p” and the management and administrative costs it had addressed in previous correspondence.
The landlord informed this service on 26 April 2021 that the landlord had asked the resident to put his complaints in writing so that the landlord could accurately record and respond to his complaints. It was not clear what repairs the resident had referred to but would address “qualifying repairs”. It had reviewed the repairs reported. It had identified an issue in the communal area that was a trip hazard where it lead to a neighbour’s home.
It had completed the repair concerns with the exception of the installation of a replacement UPVC window to the communal area required in respect of a Fire Risk Assessment. This work has been delayed by a manufacturing issue. It was due to be completed the week commencing 17/5/21 but would be pursuing confirmation of the completion date.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its first stage response on 28 April 2021 as follows:
1. It had reviewed its records and identified the following outstanding repairs:
  1. A repair in respect to the vent to his bathroom with a target completion date of 9 June 2021. There had been an issue about access. It appreciated that the resident had disputed that was the case.
  2. A communal repair to make good some brick/plasterwork. Its target completion date was 18 June 2021.
  3. A communal repair arising from the most recent fire risk assessment to replace, to replace and/or upgrade windows between the flats and the common area. The work was due to be undertaken the week beginning 17 May 2021 and it would confirm the exact date.
2. It invited the resident to inform it of which specific repair issues remained outstanding. Once it had received a response in this regard it would consider whether a compensation payment may be due as part of our Stage 2 review of these issues.
3. In relation to his report that he had received an incomplete copy of the FRA report, it would arrange for a further copy to be sent.
4. In relation to his request for a refund of the Fire Panel under the service charges, the charge had been included in the 2020-2021 estimate as it had been removed shortly before the beginning of that financial year. It would be removed and adjusted when it finalised its accounts in September 2021. That would in effect be the refund requested.
5. It would revert to the resident regarding the costs of the gardening.
6. In relation to the percentage charged for Management and Administrative costs he had recently raised, it referred the resident to its letter of 15 February 2021 which accepted that the Frequently Asked Questions did not clearly explain that the charges were Management and Administration charge of 10% and 5% respectively, were calculated on the estimated budget for the year and as a result, the subsequent actual charge could differ.
7. It asked the resident to respond in writing, but he could otherwise do so by telephone.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord arranged to send a fresh FRA report.
According to an exchange of internal emails in April 2021, the landlord investigated the differential in the gardening costs. It concluded that some blocks had been undercharged due to administrative issues. A review of all service charges was underway. The costs would be aligned in 2022/3.
According to an internal email 15 June 2021, the resident refused to provide access to the landlord to install a fire–rated window in a neighbour’s property, as recommended in the FRA report.
This service wrote to the landlord on 17 June 2021 as follows:
1. The repair works to windows to be carried out in week commencing 17 May 2021 did not go ahead.
2. The landlord had not sent him a fresh copy of the FRA report.
3. There were other outstanding repairs including mould in the property, bees in a vent and issues with fire proofing.
4. The resident had requested information in relation to the resident’s belief that drinking water was being supplied to his flat from a water tank.
5. According to the resident, he had requested an escalation to Stage 2 when the windows were not repaired in week commencing 17 May, but he had not received an acknowledgment in this respect.
6. The resident requested that he speak to the landlord to go through the issues in his complaint.
On 18 June 2021, following a request for a review of outstanding internal and communal repairs with its contractor, the contractor stated the only outstanding job was to place a plastic vent over an airbrick, which the customer had refused as he said there was bees getting in. It suggested a meeting to go over what works were required.
According to its internal emails, the landlord considered it should proactively manage the resident’s repairs and undertook a review of all jobs including any abandoned jobs and within reason, would undertake regular inspections of the communal area. The landlord recognised the resident’s rights as an occupier of the property with communal areas and shared flats to raise concerns about areas or properties that he thought might threaten the integrity/safety of his home.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2021 that it had received his request to escalate his complaint to Stage 2 of its procedure through this service. It proposed a telephone discussion.
The internal emails showed that the landlord investigated internally whether, and if so, why it had sent the resident a redacted version of the FRA report.
On 28 June 2021, the neighbour gave permission for access so that the window could be fitted. As the glass was broken, it would be fitted 2 weeks later.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 29 June 2021 and 30 June 2021 concerning the issues in his complaint including the fire risks, legionella, complaints handling, and his SAR request
A meeting and resident-led inspection of the property as proposed by the landlord and contractor took place on 5 July 2021, which, according to the landlord, lasted two and a half hours. The landlord explained on 7 July 2021 that the landlord would respond to the resident’s complaint in writing.
On 12 July 2021, the resident refused access for the installation of the fire-rated window as he wanted it bricking up instead of the recommended window. It was agreed the landlord would contact the neighbour directly.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 July 2021 with its second stage response as follows:
1. At the meeting on 5 July 2021, the resident reported damp to the living room and bedroom. The landlord arranged to overhaul the kitchen window and front door. The resident had not reported those issues previously.
2. The work to the extractor fan was outstanding.
3. In relation to communal repairs, the outstanding works consisted of a repair to the communal front and back door and to the gutters and chimney caps. These had been reported on 22 October 2020 and 27 November 2020 respectively. The resident also reported other works including to the kitchen window and a downpipe. It set out a list of dates for the works for the week of 23 July 2021.
4. In relation to a date for when the communal painting would be carried out, subject to budgets the block was included for painting works that financial year. The landlord would contact the resident nearer the time with an exact date, in line with the other residents.
5. In relation to why he and other residents received cards stating they were now “in the legal process“ in relation to gas safety checks, when the existing certificates had not expired, it explained that the landlord was legally obliged to undertake an annual gas safety check on the homes it rents to its customers. It had commenced seeking access in advance of the current certificate expiring in order to ensure the resident’s continued safety and also fulfil their legal obligations by not having a gas safety certificate that is beyond 12 months. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had a right to access the resident’s home to perform its legal obligations.
6. In relation to the resident’s questions regarding the legionella checks to the water tanks in the building, it referred to its response to a previous complaint on 12 October 2020. The landlord had arranged for an inspection by its specialist contractor on 5 October 2020. The landlord confirmed that the flats in the resident’s block were fed from a mains cold water supply (drinking water) and additional to this there was a water tank supplying the bathrooms. As an additional measure and to further mitigate any potential risk, it had instructed its contractor to carry out additional work to decommission the water tanks supplying cold water to the bathroom areas, converting them to mains cold water.
7. In relation to the reasons for cancelling his complaint of 24 May 2021 on 26 May 2021, it had done so in accordance with its “unacceptable behaviour plan” as the resident had not used the single point of contact. It did, however, forward the complaint to that point of contact.
8. In relation to the reason why the landlord had sent an edited version of the FRA report, this was an administrative error and was not intended to mislead or deny the resident access to information.
9. In relation to the lack of response to a SAR request, it had written to the resident on 11 May 2021 requesting further details.
10. In relation to the service charge for the fire alarm, which charge had since been removed, it referred the resident to, and set out, its Stage 1 complaint response dated 28 April 2021. It clarified that that the charge did not apply to the financial year 2020/21. The year-end accounts for 2020/21 would be finalised in September 2021 and any surplus would be adjusted which would effect the refund.
11. In relation to the resident’s request for compensation for all the residents, it had not received authorisation from other residents that he was representing them. It would therefore only address the resident’s own claim.
12. In relation to compensation for the landlord’s repairs service failure, it had reviewed the agreed repair issues that were raised at the joint inspection and the repairs records to May 2021. It set out a summary of the provisions under the statutory Right to Repair legislation.
13. It offered the maximum amount of £50 in relation to the delay for fitting the extractor fan and the repair to the communal front and back door. They had been previously reported and had deemed to be qualifying repairs. The total was £100.
14. It also offered a goodwill gesture of £100 “in recognition of the inconvenience and time taken in dealing with these queries.”
On 19 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to cancel the repairs due to take place and ask that no one contact him which included the job to overhaul the bathroom extractor fan, front door and trim around the kitchen window, and repair the communal front door and point outside. According to its internal emails, while it initially was going to await access, the landlord, however, made the decision to seek to pursue the repairs in any event.
The resident reported to this service that he felt that the following issues were outstanding:
1. Multiple repair issues including fire proofing.
2. A service charge query.
3. Data requests and complaint handling.
4. Mould in the bedroom.
5. Bees in the vent.
6. Missed appointments for the vent to be inspected (on 4 separate occasions).
7. Issue with fireproofing of the property.
8. Lack of communication – no call backs.
9. The landlord did not refund for a service that they are no longer providing. (The fire panel).
10. The resident’s complaints had been intentionally deleted from the landlord’s system.

SAR

The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 December 2019, referring to a request by the resident’s 6 December 2019, stating it did not hold his credit card details as the payments were managed externally. It wrote again on 23 December 2020 and 15 January 2021, enclosing a copy of the letter of 24 December 2019, explained its contents and inviting the resident to make contact to provide further information. According to the landlord’s records it also spoke to the resident on or around 15 January 2021 but had not been able to ascertain what the resident considered was missing. According to the landlord’s records, the resident spoke to the landlord on 4 February 2021. The resident referred to a request he had made 18 months previously. He had not received a response. The landlord had stated that it had emailed the resident, but the resident had stated that he had not provided his email address. The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 May 2021 stating that the resident had made a SAR and it requested further information.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

The evidence was not altogether clear as to which repairs were the subject of the resident’s complaints. The evidence also indicated that the landlord itself was not clear but that it had a number of telephone conversations with the resident. It is reasonable to conclude that the issues raised by the resident included those referred to in the second stage response. This investigation will include repairs that according to the landlord’s records, the resident had specifically raised in the six months leading up to the landlord’s second stage response.
The Ombudsman’s findings regarding the landlord’s responses to the resident’s reports are as follows:
1. The landlord’s repair records indicated that repairs to the communal doors had been completed shortly after the issue had been reported, yet the landlord treated the reports of 5 July 2021 as outstanding since October 2021, despite its review of the repairs position in June 2021. It may be that the landlord simply gave the resident the benefit of the doubt. However, this discrepancy may indicate that the records were incorrect, and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. Either way, it was reasonable of the landlord to offer compensation under its Right to Repair in relation to the door.
2. The evidence indicated that though the landlord addressed repairs to the gutter in November 2020, there was no evidence they had been followed up after January 2021. It was appropriate that the landlord treated the job as outstanding since November 2021. However, there was no evidence that the delay caused a significant impact on the resident.
3. The landlord has not provided the Ombudsman with its repairs procedure, nor does the Ombudsman have sight of its estate management policy. However, the Ombudsman deems that the cables, which would fall under the landlord’s estate management, were tidied away, and the crumbling brick outside the kitchen window was repaired within a reasonable period.
4. In relation to the repairs to the steps in the communal area, there was no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s observations following the landlord closing the resident’s complaint. However, there was no evidence that the resident remained dissatisfied, given he did not appear to have raised the issue later in the complaint process. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
5. The evidence showed that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns regarding the legionella report and drinking water. Its response in its second complaint response was supported by its records.
6. In relation to the bees and the bathroom vent, the landlord had responded within a reasonable period to the resident’s report and offered to cover the bathroom airbrick/vent, but the resident had declined access. It also responded to the reports of a wasps’ or bees’ nest. There was a delay to addressing the nest, partly as there was some confusion as to whether it was a bees’ or wasps’ nest. However, it transpired there was no nest.
7. The landlord would only be responsible for an infestation if it was due to a failure by the landlord and it was not clear whether the lack of a cover was due to a failure by the landlord. In any event, the Ombudsman would not expect the landlord to have foreseen that not covering the vent/airbrick would have caused an ingress of bees or that the resident was allergic to bees. However, the evidence showed that the landlord had attempted to cover the vent within a reasonable period of the resident’s report.
8. The resident’s report had been about the lack of cover to the bathroom vent while the repair on 5 July 2021 was described as “overhauling the extractor fan”. However, it was a reasonable exercise of the landlord’s discretion to offer compensation under its Right to Repair policy in relation to the extractor fan.
9. While a job was logged following the resident’s report of 5 May 2021 of damp in the kitchen, there was no evidence of the reason why the job was “abandoned”. There was no further evidence of a report either the same or further damp until July 2021. While that event occurred after the conclusion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, it is noted that the landlord again attended promptly, identified the repairs and offered a repair within a reasonable period.
10. In relation to the resident’s concerns about fire safety, the evidence showed that the landlord made a number of efforts to install a fire–rated window in the building but that the resident refused access on behalf of his neighbour. Given the importance of the issue, it was appropriate that the landlord made concerted efforts to resolve the issue.
The evidence also showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports within a reasonable period and where it acknowledged fault, it offered, in the view of the Ombudsman, reasonable compensation. The evidence showed that the resident declined access on a number of occasions for the repairs. In those circumstances, fault would not be attributed to the landlord for delays. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep track of those repairs and to pursue them, as far as was proportionate a) for the well-being for the resident and b) in order to ensure the maintenance of the property in good repair, including in order to protect its assets. It was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to make a decision to be proactive and to monitor and review the repairs that had been declined. It was also reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to recognise a resident’s rights to be concerned about their safety. While the landlord has made that commitment, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.

FRA report

It was reasonable of the landlord to investigate whether it had sent a redacted version of the FRA report and if there was any reason to have done so. There may be circumstances where it was entitled to do so. If, however, a landlord did redact a report for any reason, it should say so and explain why. However, there was no evidence that it had sent a redacted version deliberately.

Service charges

The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to seek to address an issue about service charges without having first provided a reasonable explanation of its actions before referring a resident to a court or tribunal. This aligns with the dispute resolution principles of being fair and proportionate and also with the expectations of a court or tribunal to seek resolution without recourse to litigation.
While the tenancy agreement did not specify, the landlord treated the resident as if he were paying variable service charges.
The evidence showed that the landlord had provided an explanation in relation to the management charges and did so again. While the landlord reasonably investigated the differential of the gardening costs, there was no evidence that the landlord explained the position to the resident regarding either the gardening charges or the depreciation. While the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have done so by now, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
There was a delay to the landlord providing a clear explanation in relation to the inclusion of the cost of a fire panel in the 2021-2022 service charges. While it stated it would reply by 16 February 2021 to the resident’s queries, there was no evidence that it did so. The landlord’s explanation as to how its managed service charges provided in its first complaint response was appropriate and reasonable and, while the landlord did not provide the Ombudsman with its service charge procedure, it is set out on its website. It is standard practice and a matter of practicality for landlords to provide an estimate of charges prior to a service charge year, and after the end of the financial year, calculate the actual charges, and then adjust the charges upwards or downwards for all residents. The landlord made clear that the resident could expect a credit in relation to the fire panel which would effectively act as a refund. While the resident would have to wait for the benefit of the refund, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to adjust each payment individually. Moreover, it is possible that some charges were more than anticipated, therefore a resident would not be necessarily owed a credit overall.
While the landlord’s complaint response did not specifically set out the reason for its offer of £100 compensation for the resident’s overall inconvenience in pursuing matters, the Ombudsman is of the view that its offer adequately addressed the landlord’s delays in some of its responses.

SAR

While if the resident was not satisfied with the response to his SAR, he should make a complaint to the ICO, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s handling of the request in terms of its service was reasonable: the evidence showed that it sent information when requested, and provided a reasonable explanation why it did not do so. It also showed itself to be proactive and responsive by responding to a telephone request and seeking further information. There was no evidence that it was provided so no service failure is attributed to the landlord in relation to the SAR.

Threat of legal action regarding an GSC

The landlord did not provide any evidence in relation to the GSC. However, the facts were self-evident and not disputed: that the GSC had not expired, and the landlord had threatened legal action in order to gain access. The resident had an obligation to give access for repairs and gas safety inspections under the tenancy agreement, which highlighted the issue in relation to gas safety inspections. The landlord’s explanation of why it was seeking access and an inspection prior to the previous certificate expiring was reasonable and appropriate: the landlord had a legal obligation pursuant to the Gas Safety Regulations 1998 to ensure the certificate was renewed prior to expiry and not after expiry. As with fire safety, while the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to show sensitivity towards residents with vulnerabilities, it would be proportionate for the landlord to consider taking legal action in order to gain access on order to protect the safety of its residents.

The landlord’s complaint handling including a cancelled complaint and request for compensation.

There was no evidence of a clear pathway of the resident’s complaints or that the landlord followed its procedure. The complaint policy itself did not provide a timescale for the landlord’s initial response in the even a complaint was not upheld. On being contacted by the Ombudsman, the landlord reasonably collated the complaints and provided a response, albeit with a short delay. The Ombudsman deems that the resident’s request to escalate his complaint was this service’s letter of 17 June 2021 and again, the landlord responded within a reasonable period. Many of the issues appeared to be queries rather than an expression of dissatisfaction.
While the landlord should have explained why it cancelled the resident’s complaint on 25 May 2021, the landlord’s explanation for doing so was reasonable and there was no impact on the resident ultimately as it was a matter of administrative process and his complaint was addressed.
The Ombudsman has considered the issues the resident felt were not addressed. The issues either included issues that had not been raised during the complaint process (such as mould in the bedroom and lack of communication) or were addressed in its responses. In any event, the Ombudsman did not see evidence that the landlord did not unreasonably return the resident’s calls, given the contact restrictions and that it was appropriate at times for the landlord to respond in writing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the view of the Ombudsman there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs and works, including internal and communal repairs and works pursuant to a legionella inspection and an FRA.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s for a copy of the FRA report.
In accordance with Paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the view of the Ombudsman, there was reasonable redress in relation to the delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding services charges, including gardening services and management charges and a refund relating to a fire panel.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s SAR.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries regarding threat of legal action regarding an GSC.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, including a cancelled complaint and request for compensation.

Reasons

The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner and undertook works pursuant to the legionella report and FRA report. It also offered reasonable compensation where it felt there had been delays.
The landlord’s explanation for not having provided the full FRA report was reasonable.
While there was a delay, the landlord addressed the resident’s service charge queries. The Ombudsman was of the view that the compensation offered to the resident pursuing matters was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The evidence showed that the landlord responded to the resident’s subject access request and provided a reasonable explanation for not doing so as well as inviting the resident to provide clarification of his request.
The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for referring to legal action in relation to seeking access in order to carry out a gas safety inspection.
The landlord responded to the resident’s complaints and a reasonable explanation for having cancelled the resident’s complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider providing a response to the resident in relation to the steps and consider a compensation of £50 under its Right to Repair scheme, if appropriate.
The landlord should, as it intended to, proactively manage a resident’s repairs and undertake a review of all jobs including any “abandoned” jobs and within reason, undertake regular inspections of the communal area. The landlord should consider a system to ensure that jobs marked as “complete” are in fact complete.
The landlord should, if it has not done so, explain the position to the resident regarding the discrepancy in the gardening charges and provide an explanation for the item marked “depreciation.”
The landlord should, if it has not done already, consider adopting clear procedures in relation to its service charges and, for the sake of transparency to publish all its policies and procedures on its website.
The landlord should consider its policy in relation to providing a timescale for a first response. The landlord is referred to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Guidance. Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
The landlord should, if it does not do so already, acknowledge the complaint in writing, provide a timescale for both first and stage responses. The landlord should also differentiate between a request for information and an expression of dissatisfaction.
The landlord should provide feedback on the above recommendations to the Ombudsman.