Wandsworth Council (202120938)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120938

Wandsworth Council

26 July 2023 (amended at Review)

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning services.
2. Administration of the resident’s service charge account.
3. Response to the resident’s reports of discrimination and fraudulent activities.
4. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of aone-bedroom flat within a purpose-built block. His landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder of the block.
Between 25 July 2020 and 10 August 2020, the resident complained in writing to his landlord about:
1. Communal cleaning of his block.
2. The administration of his service account and instalments resulting in a four pence overcharge.
3. A major works demand for the cold water booster system which he considered fraudulent because it had been replaced recently.
4. He alleged he was intimidated by the landlord’s Chief Executive and as such demanded £10,000 compensation.
In a stage one response issued on 13 August 2020 (not provided to the Ombudsman), the landlord addressed issues outside of the scope of this investigation. Significantly, it referred to a further response to be issued by a named colleague addressing the substantive issues of this complaint. On 19 August 2020, the resident chased a response raising some additional issues related to the cleaning of communal areas in his block. He stated he did not receive an instalment plan for 2018/19 service charges. He repeated his allegations of fraudulent behaviour and reaffirmed his demand for a large amount of compensation.
On 14 September 2020, the landlord issued its stage 2 response in which it explained:
1. It had liaised with its cleaning contractor and confirmed the cleaning schedule and deep clean regime.
2. It referred to its letter of 12 December 2019 in which it had previously explained that the major works bill for “Replacement of Cold Water Booster System” was mistitled. It should have read “Replacement of Cold Water Storage Tanks and Associated Works.” The landlord apologised for the oversight and confusion the letters caused and concluded it found no evidence of fraudulent behaviour.
3. The landlord apologised that the resident had not received the instalment plan for 2018/19, which would have been sent with the documents. It reissued the instalment plan which detailed the direct debit schedule and demonstrated why the July 2019 payment was four pence more than previous months.
Between 26 February 2021 and 8 March 2021, the resident complained again to his landlord expressing dissatisfaction about administration of his service account and intimidation. He said his landlord was at fault for not collecting his 2017/2018 major works instalments and subsequently he held back £80. He complained about his landlord’s delays processing his cheque and commented further on the chief executive behaviour repeating his assertions of “illegal activity.”
On 31 March 2021, the landlord issued a further stage 1 response in which:
1. In relation to the resident receiving two reminder letters in quick succession, it apologised and confirmed it had not issued a reminder until its letter of 19 February 2021. It upheld this element of his complaint but declined compensation and explained it was not appropriate and the resident remained liable for the outstanding charge of £80.
2. In relation to the resident’s complaint about the chief executive, it signposted him on its process for raising concerns and did not uphold this element of his complaint.
3. In relation to delays cashing his cheque, his landlord explained it had been banked as per its strict processes and allocated to his service charge account and thus was not unduly delayed.
On 1 July 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting escalation of his complaint. He stated he had received delayed reminder letters and intimidating payment demands and as such his landlord failed in its duty of care to him. He also complained that the mat and the stairway was last cleaned in 2020 and remained “smelly and dirty”.
On 12 August 2021, the landlord issued a stage 3 final response in which:
1. It confirmed the resident remained liable for the outstanding charge of £80.
2. It highlighted its previous apology issued 31 March 2021 regarding issuing of reminder letters.
3. It explained its delay in generating payment reminders was down to a combination of changes to its finance system and the covid pandemic.
4. It apologised for the resident feeling intimidated by receiving the reminder letters. It explained there was no intention to intimidate the resident and that its issuing of the reminder letter was standard practice for accounts in arrears.
5. The landlord noted the resident’s comments that its letter dated 28 June 2021 took three days to reach his address. It stated it takes every effort to dispatch letters promptly, but delivery time is down to Royal Mail postal service. His landlord signposted him to the Royal Mail customer service department if he wished to raise his concerns directly.
The resident brought his complaints for the Ombudsman’s formal investigation on 8 December 2021. He expressed his desired outcome for substantial damages, cancellation of the £80 arrears from 2017 due to errors in collecting his direct debit. He cited:
1. Further failure to collect his direct debit for major works in 2021,
2. Ongoing concerns about communal cleaning, and
3. The resulting intimidation and harassment the resident stated he experienced.

Jurisdiction

The resident asserted he was being harassed and intimidated by the landlord and that his landlord is discriminating against him. While it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine whether these actions have taken place, we can look at whether the landlord responded fairly and appropriately to the resident’s concerns in this respect. However, the resident can seek advice from the Equality Advisory Support Service (EASS) if he considers that he has experienced discrimination. The EASS will be able to discuss his concerns and, if appropriate, signpost him to appropriate options if he decides to take these concerns further.
The resident also alleged that the landlord had been conducting fraudulent and illegal activities, with the landlord advising that these issues would be best investigated by the police. The Ombudsman cannot investigate criminal action as such investigations fall properly within the jurisdiction of the police or the courts.
As such, the complaint about possible fraudulent and discriminatory actions on the part of the landlord is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that we may not consider complaints 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.

Assessment and findings

Scope

In addition to the above, the Ombudsman does not have expertise to make findings about liability on the part of the landlord. Whilst we can investigate the landlord’s administration of service charge, we are unable to take a decision of whether the resident is liable to pay the outstanding balance from the major works charge from 2017.
The resident raised initial issues on the matters to be investigated in July 2020. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process and then at stage two to the initial issues raised. Following the landlord’s letters to the resident of February 2021, the resident raised additional concerns to which the landlord responded again at stage one of its complaints process. After a further escalation request from the resident, the landlord responded to all the issues raised from the outset at stage three in August 2021. The complaint process took over one year and this will be further discussed in the complaint handling section. In the interest of providing a resolution, the Ombudsman will investigate all the issues raised despite aspects having been responded to under separate complaint processes, at least at the initial stages of the landlord’s complaint processes.
This approach is consistent with the Ombudsman’s overarching investigations guidance and dispute resolution principles, which require the Ombudsman to be fair in all the circumstances of the case and to look to progress issues through to a resolution.

Handling of the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning services

The resident complained about communal cleaning of his block and stated his belief that his landlord does not monitor its contractors. Specifically, cleaning of the mat and stairwell, and stated his landlord lied about this and the communal areas remained “dirty and smelly.” He felt he was treated unfairly and that on his inspection of other floors in the block he found all were cleaned except for his which he believed amounted to harassment.
In its stage 2 response of 14 September 2020, the landlord explained that it liaised with its cleaning contractors in relation to his concerns, and reported, “They have advised that on a day to day basis the mat is swept, and a mop is run over it if required when the ground floor lobby is cleaned. However, the mat is only lifted to sweep and mop underneath when the deep clean takes place approximately every 6 months. The last deep clean was completed on 28 August 2020.”
In its stage 3 final response of 12 August 2021, the landlord apologised that the resident remained dissatisfied with the communal cleaning. It explained its processes in line with the Housemark Caretaking and Cleaning Standards reporting, “The entrance mat and staircase will still be cleaned regularly although not now to a specific cleaning schedule. The block was last inspected on 29th June 2021 and no issues were noted with the cleanliness of the building at that time”. It confirmed that as a result of his complaint, it arranged for the cleaning of the block to be monitored to ensure it continues to be cleaned to a satisfactory standard. It is important for landlords to learn from complaints and its actions in addition to its investigation to arrange monitoring of the communal cleaning of the block demonstrates it treated the residents’ concerns appropriately and fairly. It took the resident’s reports seriously and acted in line with its obligations.
As part of the evidence submitted to this investigation, the landlord highlighted its cleaning assessments in line with the Housemark method. There is no evidence whether the results were shared with residents of the block. Whilst the landlord’s actions were in line with its policies, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to share these results with stakeholders.
The landlord demonstrated it had investigated the resident’s concerns about communal cleaning and liaised with its contractors. It provided relevant feedback to the resident and arranged additional monitoring of his block to ensure standards are maintained. The landlord addressed his concerns about communal cleaning and took appropriate action, as such, there has been no maladministration in relation to this element of the resident’s complaint.

Administration of the resident’s service charge account.

The Ombudsman has considered whether its delay requesting the arrears was reasonable. The landlord did not explain the cause of the delay until its stage 3 final response. It explained the delay was the result of a change to its finance system in December 2017, and later, the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic when it paused issuing reminder letters.
Whilst it is appreciated that the Covid-19 pandemic caused disruption in the landlord’s usual services, the lengthy delay between December 2017 and March 2020 was unreasonable. The landlord has not demonstrated it had managed the resident’s expectations. The resident advised that the significant delay in pursuing the outstanding payment had caused confusion.
Additionally, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have kept in touch with the resident during the Covid period. This would have ensured that the resident remained aware of his obligations and that it did not come as a surprise when his landlord was able to commence arrears recovery after Covid-19 pandemic.
In relation to the resident’s assertions that the landlord has harassed him, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s demands for the overdue major works service charge from 2017. This investigation shows the resident was not reminded about this payment until 19 February 2021 when he received a reminder for arrears of £1,330. A further demand was issued on 22 February 2021.Evidence suggests the resident settled £1,250 against this outstanding demand but chose to retain £80 because of the landlord’s error.
It is noted that the resident considered his landlord’s issuing of arrears letters to be intimidating. There is no evidence that the resident was treated contrary to standard practices, and as such, was not indicative of heavy handed or intimidating behaviour. Additionally, the landlord apologised for the distress the resident experienced in receiving two letters in quick succession.
With reference to the resident’s assertion that he has been overcharged four pence which he claimed amounts to fraud due to the landlord’s failure to supply an instalment plan for 2018/2019. In its breakdown of the direct debit and reissue of the instalment plan his landlord has demonstrated its actions collecting four pence more in July 2019 was proper and in line with its direct debit calculations. The landlord acted appropriately and fairly. It provided reasonable explanation to the resident. There is no evidence to support the resident’s claims that they were overcharged.
In his complaint the resident stated the landlord again failed to collect the direct debit for his major works service charge for 2021/22 commencing 28 October 2021. In its letter to the resident of 10 December 2021 his landlord confirms the direct debit has been set up as per his instalment plan as requested and therefore this element has been resolved satisfactorily.
Overall, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns and demonstrated that it considered seriously his service charge concerns. However, it failed to acknowledge that the delay in pursuing the outstanding payment for the major works from 2017 was considerable. As such, there was a service failure in the landlord’s administration of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

In its email to the Ombudsman on 25 February 2022. the landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint completed its old three step Internal Complaints Process (IPC) and as such was closed on 12 August 2021.
The landlord did not provide the complaint’s policy, which it relied on at the time of the complaint. Since then, it has changed it to a two-stage complaint policy. The Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code recommends that landlords have two stages of complaints policy, at stage 1 a response should be sent within 10 working days and at stage 2, within 20 working days.
Whilst it is appreciated that the resident raised many complaints which were difficult for the landlord to respond to all at once, the landlord was inconsistent with its approach. There is evidence of overlapping responses and responses where the landlord outlined the issues but did not address them, as per the response from 13 August 2020 titled stage 1. Then, a further stage 1 response issued on 31 March 2021 appears to address the complaint. This was confusing as to what stage the resident’s complaint was. In addition, it caused delays and frustration to the resident. Furthermore, the stage 3 process was not in line with the Ombudsman’s Code operating from July 2020.
In its final response, the landlord wrote, “If you remain dissatisfied with this response in relation to your service charge balance, it is open to you to refer your complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) whose contact details are provided below.” The resident brought his complaint to LGSCO on 30 November 2021 and was redirected to The Housing Ombudsman as the appropriate Ombudsman to consider his complaint.
The resident was signposted to the incorrect Ombudsman in relation to his complaint resulting in further inconvenience and frustration and delays in getting matters resolved. As such, this Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made to reflect the landlord’s failures, including compensation to reflect the Ombudsman’s guide to remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s concerns about its communal cleaning services.
2. Service failure by the landlord in relation to its administration of the resident’s service charge account.
3. Maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s concerns about discrimination and fraudulent activities are outside of jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence to this Service of compliance with the orders as follows:
1. Pay the resident compensation the total sum of £200 comprising:
  1. £50 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures in the administration of the resident’s service charge account.
  2. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble experienced by the resident by its handling of the resident’s complaint.
2. To review its system and the case with regards to the delays in pursuing the resident’s payments for major works in 2017 in order to reduce the risk of similar issues reoccurring. To share its findings with the resident and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord is to consider sharing results of its Housemark cleaning inspections with residents of the block to ensure open and transparent processes in relation to its communal cleaning.
It is recommended the landlord to undertake a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code if it has not done so. In case self-assessment is completed to provide further guidance and training with regards to Ombudsman’s referrals and complaint handling.