Trent & Dove Housing Limited (202230178)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230178

Trent & Dove Housing Limited

27 January 2025

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:
1. A communal bollard wired into the resident’s meter.
2. Unannounced visits by the landlord’s contractors.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The landlord owns 30 homes out of the 150 homes situated on a housing estate. The 30 properties owned by the landlord are a mixture of shared ownership and rented. The developer who owns the estate instructed a management company to deliver services to the properties on the estate. The services included maintaining all private accessways including associated lighting within the estate. The landlord was invoiced by the management company for the service charges relative to the 30 properties it owned. The landlord then passed this service charge on to its residents.
The developer chose to provide electricity for the outside carpark lamp posts/bollards on some plots via wiring through an individual property rather than a communal supply. The developer provided an allowance to cover the cost of electricity which was applied as a credit to the service charge by the management company. The landlord was then passing this credit amount onto the resident. The management company ceased to operate around 2017, and no invoices have been received since then.
The resident is a shared owner of the property with the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroomed house. The lease began in 2016. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 9 August 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said she had been made aware in November 2021 that a communal bollard was connected to her electric meter. She said she had now turned the connection off. She wanted compensation for the costs incurred and for it to be disconnected moving forwards. She also said that contractors had attended to do works and had let themselves into her back garden without her consent.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response. In summary it said:
1. The management company had ceased trading in 2018 up until that point it had not been involved in the site maintenance. Since it ceased trading, it had however tried to assist in the best way by undertaking some maintenance of communal areas.
2. The cost of this has been passed on as a service charge in accordance with the lease. When the resident had made it aware that she should have been credited £40 per year for the electric use it reimbursed her for the cost of this for the full period as a good will gesture.
3. It agreed that the wiring of the light was not ideal. It said that it was looking into possible solutions moving forwards. Once it had made further enquiries it would communicate its proposals and all costs to all residents concerned.
4. It only had record of one incident where its contractor had attended the property without notice. The visit was to enquire about the bollard. It apologised that it had not provided notice of its visit.
On 1 September 2022, the resident raised a stage 2 complaint. In summary she said:
1. She did not agree that the landlord had no involvement or knowledge of the communal bollard prior to 2018. The landlord owned 50% of the property and were the registered freeholders and have been since prior to her purchasing the property.
2. She had not informed the landlord that the bollard was connected to her meter. The landlord’s electrician who was completing a repair informed her that her meter was wired to the communal light.
3. The landlord had informed her that she should have been receiving £40 per annum. She had not requested this.
4. She disagreed that the landlord had only attended once without notice. Electricians had attended on 2 March 2022 and 9 August 2022 without notice.
5. She disagreed that the landlord had not completed any works in relation to guttering and painting. Both contractors had informed the resident that they had been instructed to carry out the work by the managers of the estate which she believed was the landlord.
On 14 September 2022, the resident wanted to add to her complaint that the landlord had attended again without notice to look at the meter and entered her garden without her permission.
On 29 September 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it said:
1. It apologised for the discrepancy of information in its stage 1 response. It had identified that the bollard was powered by the resident’s meter, and it had informed the resident. It then agreed to investigate the issue further and credit the amount agreed with the previous owner and managing agent.
2. It could not see that its repairs operative had attended the property it noted that it had not checked with its external contractors.
3. The works to clean facias and guttering were carried out in error. It had written to all residents on 9 March to cancel the works. It apologised for any inconvenience caused.
4. It had checked its van trackers for its electricians, and none had attended on 14 September 2022. It had tried to contact the resident to obtain further information. Without any further evidence it could not confirm or deny that it had attended that day without prior notice.
5. It offered £100 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for its delay in dealing with the issue of the bollard.
  2. £25 for attending without notice to check the bollard.
  3. £25 for attending with notice but in error to clean the guttering and facias.

Post complaint.

The resident contacted this Service. She said that the issue related to the bollard still remained unresolved. She had not received the compensation offered and contractors had continued to attend her property without notice.
This Service contacted the landlord in January 2025 to ascertain whether the issue had now been resolved. The landlord informed this Service that it had written to both the developer and the managing agent on several occasions, but it had not received a response. It said that as it did not own the land it had no responsibility for the light or the maintenance of it. It said it would continue to facilitate communication regarding the transfer for future management purposes.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s policies and procedures.

The lease states that the resident must contribute a fair proportion to be assessed by the landlord of the cost of repairing maintaining, renewing and cleaning of any boundary walls, fences, hedges and any access roadways, parking areas and footpaths.
The lease also states that the resident must permit the landlord at all reasonable times on notice to enter the premises to view the condition thereof and to make good all defects and wants of repair with notice in writing is given by the landlord to the leaseholder.
The landlord’s management company policy states where residents alert it to possible issues, its relevant team will address these issues with the management company and communicate actions to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a communal bollard wired into the resident’s meter.

The evidence shows that on 21 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord regarding the communal bollard. She said it was continually on, and she had been advised that it was wired into her meter. The landlord said it would refer the issue to its legal team. It said a repair would be raised to ensure that the light was only on at night and not continuously. It also advised the resident to check her documents as her solicitor should have made her aware of all services connected to her property at the point she purchased.
The resident responded and provided the relevant documentation. She confirmed that there was no provision in the lease or other documents to show that the light was connected to her supply and that she should be responsible. The resident had to chase the landlord for a response in February 2022 and again in March 2022.
The landlord responded on 4 March 2022. This was 72 working days after the resident had raised her enquiry. The landlord’s complaint responses issued in August and September 2022 failed to provide any explanation for its delays. Its stage 2 response did however offer £50 compensation for its delay in investigating the matter from November 2021 to May 2022. It is unclear how it had calculated the compensation and how it had determined that it had fully investigated the matter by May 2022.
In March 2022, the landlord informed the resident that she should have received a £40 annual lighting allowance. It explained the position relative to the management company and said as a good will gesture it had reimbursed her the annual lighting allowance for the relevant period which amounted to £200. This was appropriate to try to restore the resident’s position.
The response however failed to address the substantial issue and how it would be resolved moving forwards. The landlord had said that it would arrange for the bollard to only light up at night in the interim and that it would contact its legal team. Yet it failed to address this within its communication in March 2022.
This failing meant that the resident had to spend further time and effort raising a complaint. She also had to disconnect the supply herself to avoid further costs. This Service therefore considers that the £50 compensation the landlord offered does not fully reflect the delays. Neither does it reflect the time and effort caused to the resident having to pursue her matter further to try to get it resolved. When considering an appropriate amount, this Service has referred to our remedy’s guidance.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it was looking into possible solutions moving forwards. It said that once it had made further inquiries it would communicate its proposals to all residents, and it would detail any associated costs. This response was vague and failed to offer reassurance that the matter would be resolved.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained some of the options that it had considered but it said that they were not viable. This Service acknowledges that the issue was complex. It would therefore be reasonable in these circumstances for a landlord to seek legal advice as to what steps it can take. The landlord had said that it would seek legal advice when the resident first enquired but failed to evidence that it had. By not doing so it failed to show that it was doing all it could try to get matters resolved.
In summary the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal bollard were inadequate and amounted to maladministration. The landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timeframe. When it did respond it failed to show that it had done all it could to try to get the issue resolved. Given the complexity of the matter, and the need for the estate to be maintained moving forwards, it should have sought legal advice. That it did not was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter at an earlier stage.
The resident has had to chase the landlord for a response several times and then spend further time pursuing her complaint. She also continues to live with the uncertainty of when the matter would be resolved.
Since the complaint, the landlord informed this Service that it has now developed a specific policy for dealing with management companies. It has also said that it has sought specialist legal advice from a leasehold consultant to inform it of further actions. It said that this advice would be shared with its residents who are affected by the issue. An order has therefore been made below to ensure that the landlord seeks appropriate advice to enable it to set out an action plan of what steps it will now take to resolve the matter. If it has not done so already.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about unannounced visits by the landlord’s contractors.

The landlord acknowledged within its stage 1 response that it had attended once without notice to the resident. It said that its records did not show any further visits, and it did not consider this failing required an award of compensation. This Service has not had sight of any records, so it is unclear how the landlord satisfied itself that it had only attended once. The landlord did however apologise which was appropriate. It also said that this had been fed back to the relevant team.
The landlord then changed its position within its stage 2 response. It offered £25 compensation for its without notice visit as identified in its stage 1 response. It explained this was because it was responding to another resident’s report of the light in the bollard not working and this led to it having to investigate her meter. Its explanation was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
It said that it had now also checked its contractor records and noted it had incorrectly attended to do works to the guttering and facias. It had sent letters but upheld the resident’s complaint. It confirmed it would not charge for the works it had completed. It offered a further £25 compensation for any inconvenience caused which was also appropriate.
The landlord’s explanation that it had not attended in September as it had checked its van trackers was reasonable. The landlord also said that it had tried to contact the resident during the complaint process to establish whether there was any further information or evidence it could consider relating to the visit. This was appropriate and showed that the landlord was listening to the resident and taking her concerns seriously. Its conclusion that it could not confirm that it had attended that day was therefore reasonable in the circumstances.
The landlord investigated the resident’s concerns and set out its position. It acted fairly in acknowledging its mistakes and apologising to the resident. It put things right by feeding back its error to the relevant team and awarding £50 compensation. The landlord has made redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident. This Service has therefore made a reasonable redress finding in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about unannounced visits by its contractors.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within its timescales set out in its policy. It addressed all of the issues raised. However, the comments that it will look at a solution and see if it can come up with an alternative did not show a meaningful assessment of the issue.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was also provided within its timescales. The complaint response was however confusing as its heading said it was a stage 1 response. This was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
The landlord considered its handling of the issues in more depth in its stage 2 response. It offered compensation to try to put matters right which was appropriate. It also considered the resident’s concerns about its version of events in its stage 1 response. It recognised where its version had been incorrect. This showed it was listening to the resident and taking her concerns seriously.
It still however failed to provide any reassurance that the issue with the bollard would be resolved. By not setting out its legal position and providing an action plan it failed to show that it had done all that it could to try to resolve the matter.
This Service considers the above failings amount to maladministration. The resident had to spend time and effort pursuing her complaint further. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a communal bollard wired into the resident’s meter.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about unannounced visits by the landlord’s contractors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident a total of £450. £50 of the landlord’s compensation offer can be deducted from this total, if already paid. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £350 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about a communal bollard wired into the resident’s meter.
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to seek specialist advice about what action it can take regarding the bollard if it has not done so already. It must then write to the resident to set out what action it will now take to get the issues resolved. If it has not done so already. Where possible it should include timescales. It should also provide a point of contact for the resident who will oversee the issue until completion. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 8 weeks.
Also, within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its response to the resident’s concerns about a communal bollard wired into her meter. It should satisfy itself that that the changes it has made since the complaint can prevent similar failings happening again. It should also consider whether any other resident’s who may have been affected the same require details of its action plan to resolve the matter. If it has not done so already. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.

Recommendation.

The reasonable redress finding is dependent on the landlord paying the resident £50 as offered in its stage 2 response for its response to the resident’s concerns about unannounced visits by its contractors.