Peabody Enterprises Limited (202005167)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202005167

Peabody Enterprises Limited

25 January 2021

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 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:

Responses to the resident’s reports about its provision of estate management services;
Response to the resident’s reports that it had made comments about his mental health;
Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The landlord has stated that the resident is a secure tenant although the Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the tenancy agreement. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s property is within a block of 36 flats on an estate managed by the landlord.
The landlord’s online tenancy rights documents confirm that the resident has the ‘ability to complain about failure to provide services’ and the ‘right to have repairs carried out within certain timescales’.
The landlord’s ‘Resident’s Handbook’ states that:

‘You pay a service charge for shared services provided on your estate or in your block, for example, cleaning and lighting shared areas, maintaining the grounds and maintaining lifts.’

The estate has a set of electronic gates set back from the street, through which vehicles need to pass to access the estate. There are both vehicle and pedestrian gates. The landlord has stated that the resident is not specifically charged for maintenance of costs of these gates but a breakdown of rent liability has not been provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s website advises that:

‘Our team of environment caretakers are responsible for cleaning and maintaining communal areas on your estates. Their tasks include:

cleaning communal areas inside and outside Peabody buildings
clearing rubbish
carrying out communal maintenance tasks such as replacing light bulbs
removing graffiti
dealing with bulk rubbish’

The landlord’s website describes the estate as having parking spaces which residents can apply for by contacting it directly. Photographs submitted by the resident show that there are collapsible yellow security bollards for each parking bay.
The landlord has a ‘Repairs Policy’ that sets standard timescales for repairs. Programmed repairs and specialist works are to be completed within 60 calendar days and recall repairs (where a resident reports a repair has not been carried out correctly) should be completed within 5 calendar days.

The policy also confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs of ‘communal entrance gates and locks’ and maintenance of ‘communal gardens’.

The landlord has a ‘Complaints Policy’ that sets out a 2-stage complaints process but does not prescribe timescales. The policy does state that:

‘In order that complaints can be investigated effectively, all complaints should be submitted to Peabody within six months of when the event occurred or it became known to the complainant. Peabody may exercise discretion in exceptional circumstances when considering whether to accept a complaint submitted outside of this timescale.’

The landlord has a separate ‘Complaints Procedure’ which has a Stage 1 response target of 10 working days and a Stage 2 response target of 15 working days. The Stage 2 investigation can be conducted by a manager or a Panel.

The procedure does allow for instances where a response within these timescales is not possible – in this situation, ‘the complainant will be provided with an explanation as to why this is the case, an update on the progress, what will be the next steps and when they can expect to hear from us.’

The ‘Complaints Policy’ confirms that compensation can be awarded at Stage 1 and Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. The aforementioned ‘Resident’s Handbook’ states:

‘If we have done something wrong, or failed to provide a service, we will always do everything we can to put the matter right. However, there may be times when it is appropriate to pay you compensation for the problems you have experienced as a result.’

Summary of Events

The landlord and resident have provided the Ombudsman with copies of email exchanges that date back to the year prior to the resident’s complaint being made. These cover a variety of estate management subjects that were considered as part of the complaint that has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

Cleaning & Caretaker (2018)

There were emails between the landlord and resident throughout the year regarding estate cleaning. During February 2018, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise concerns about the noise caused by the estate caretaker, the early working hours of the caretaker and the standard of cleaning.
In response, the landlord:

Wrote to the resident in February 2018 to state that the caretaker had been asked not to use leaf blower equipment
Wrote to the resident in March 2018 to advise it had investigated cleaning standards and concluded that they were ‘good’
Responded to the resident in June 2018 to advise that a deep clean of the estate would be undertaken after contractors had left the site following improvement works

Cleaning & Caretaker (2019)

There were emails between the landlord and resident throughout the year where the resident:

Raised concerns about the early working hours of the caretaker during January 2019 and use of loud machinery during August 2019
Raised concerns about the location of bins during February 2019
Stated staff had failed to attend estate walkabouts from November 2018 to January 2019
Requested that sheds be cleared of rubbish during September 2019
Noted some improvement in the upkeep of the estate in December 2019

In response, the landlord has:

Provided internal estate inspection sheets recording assessments between November 2018 and February 2019 that show a ‘Gold’ standard of cleaning
Responded to the resident in September 2019, acknowledging some delay since a meeting in July 2019 (which is stated was caused by staff shortages) in clearance of sheds and re-instatement of them for resident usage
Responded to the resident in September 2019 to advise that the caretaker had been moved away from the estate (the landlord subsequently confirmed that a mobile cleaning team would take responsibility for the estate)

During the course of these interactions, an internal landlord email on 18 February 2019 suggested the caretaker be moved to another location for 2 months. This internal email of 18 February 2019 included comments in red made against the resident’s email to the landlord of 15 February 2019. One of these comments stated the resident ‘always mentioned tenants but is only him and his neighbour which is suffering from mental health issues’.
The landlord and resident exchanged correspondence on 18 February 2019, the resident having been provided with the above edited copy of his own email. The resident asked for staff to be transferred away from the estate following comments made about his mental health. The landlord replied to state that the comments were about a neighbour not the resident and apologised that they were sent to the resident in error.

Cleaning & Caretaker (2020)

The resident again wrote to the landlord throughout the year to raise concerns over cleaning standards. The resident:

Reported some specific cleaning concerns to the landlord in February 2020, including that the mobile cleaning team had not attended the estate on a Wednesday as they were required to
Raised concerns with the landlord in June 2020 that cleaning had only been undertaken twice in the previous 3 months and management was failing to attend monthly estate walkabouts

In response, the landlord has:

Sent cleaners to the estate the day after the February 2020 report to attend to the specific areas raised by the resident (this is evidenced by internal landlord emails and post-works photographs where arrangements were made for cleaners to attend the site)
Responded to the resident in June 2020 to advise that the member of staff (whom he had referred to missing estate inspections) had been out of the country for 4 months due to the pandemic and that, for the same reason, management were not attending estates unless an emergency or urgent issue arose
Responded to the resident in August 2020, stating that records had been reviewed and cleaning standards were found to be good

Vehicle & Pedestrian Gates

Internal landlord emails show that the landlord raised a repairs job on 20 September 2018 to attend to the estate gates as they were continuously open and had been broken around 17 times since installation. This same exchange shows that, during October 2018, the landlord sought to obtain a quote for the vehicle gate to be fixed. During November 2018, the landlord noted within internal emails that the gate had been further damaged since the September 2018 order was raised. Emails between the landlord and their contractor indicate works were due to occur on 3 December 2018 but the job remained outstanding when it was followed up with the contractor in March 2019.
Internal landlord emails during February 2019 noted that repair works to the gates had been ‘delayed due to the estate window replacement works’. An internal landlord email of 31 May 2019 again stated that 17 orders had been raised to fix the gates in recent years due to misuse by residents and that this is why the gates were no longer automated. There were internal landlord emails during August-September 2019 showing gate repairs were again being chased up with their contractors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 October 2019 to report that a section of the pedestrian gate had been fixed but this had been incorrectly carried out as a new gate arm had been installed in the wrong place.
An internal landlord email of 2 December 2019 mentioned that users of the gate have in the past pushed open the electronic pedestrian gate, causing it damage. Later internal landlord emails from December 2019 indicate that repairs had been undertaken to the gates but they had quickly become faulty again. The landlord’s contractor provided a report that a quotation had been offered several months before for a new system but no record of it had been retained so another quotation would be provided. The resident confirmed on 23 December 2019 that the gates were working again but that the pedestrian gate needed some adjustment and some communication on correct use of gates was required for residents.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 January 2020, following up a meeting he stated had been held between him and the landlord on 15 January 2020. The resident advised that this followed a period when the landlord’s contractors had left the gates closed without residents being informed. According to the resident, it was agreed that modifications would be made to the pedestrian gate and the vehicle gate would be left closed (with keys being assigned for the vehicle gate to be opened by the landlord’s contractors and refuse collectors). The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 January 2020 to set up a further meeting with the resident and contractor in attendance to discuss and resolve the open gates.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 10 February 2020, requesting confirmation of the date of 2 March 2020 that he states was agreed for the gates to be operating from. The landlord replied on the same day, denying that a promise had been made for the gates to be working on 2 March 2020 but stating this was being worked on.
Internal landlord emails from May 2020 show that repairs records had been considered and it had been recorded on 23 April 2020 that a new keypad had been installed and left working with the gates left locked up.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 June 2020, reporting that the gates were still permanently open.

Parking

The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 August 2019 asking if the yellow parking bollards could be removed from the parking bays. He followed up by writing to the landlord on 26 September 2019, again seeking removal of bollards from parking bays. The resident referred to contractors not being able to use bays due to the bollards and that this could result in vehicles being parked in positions that could cause damage to plant pots on the estate.
It is not disputed that the landlord issued parking consultation documents to residents on 5 December 2019, requesting feedback and votes on proposed options to either operate a ‘first come first served’ parking scheme, introduce a parking enforcement scheme or leave the parking arrangements as they were.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 9 December 2019, providing his consultation feedback. He subsequently wrote to the landlord on 24 December 2019 and 23 January 2020, providing details of neighbours whom he stated were in favour of a parking enforcement scheme being introduced to the estate and chasing up the outcome of the consultation.
Internal landlord emails in January 2020 show that the landlord considered the results of the consultation but was concerned about potential contractual ramifications of ending agreements that had been made with the residents who were currently using parking bays.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 March 2020, again making enquiries about the outcome of the parking consultation which ended in December 2019. The resident made a further request that all bollards be removed and that parking be made free and open temporarily, prior to introduction of a parking enforcement scheme.
The resident again wrote to the landlord on 24 June 2020 and raised the lack of progress on parking amongst other issues.

Plant Pots

The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 October 2019, reporting the lack of watering of plants on the estate and chasing replacement of 4 damaged basket plants that he stated had been agreed by the landlord for May 2019.
Internal landlord emails from December 2019 show that the landlord reviewed the issue of replacement plant pots and concluded that only 2 replacement plants were outstanding, indicating its agreement to these replacements.
Internal landlord emails and photographs from January 2020 show a plant ‘count up’ exercise was undertaken but it is not clear from the landlord records provided what the outcome of this was and if any further action was found to be needed.

Complaint History

The landlord has referred to a complaint made by the resident on 30 January 2019 but has not provided a copy of this complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident submitted a follow up complaint to the landlord on 19 February 2019 regarding the previously mentioned comments made by staff about his mental health (see paragraph 16).
Internal landlord emails on 27 February 2019 referenced that the resident’s complaint was also regarding the landlord’s provision of estate management services such as the standard of estate cleaning and maintenance of pedestrian and vehicle gates.
The landlord issued a Stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 29 March 2019, offering the following updates and outcomes:

Communal repairs – The landlord stated that an electrical box would be repaired that day, drain repairs would be completed on 5 April 2019 and the gate repairs would be progressed – an apology was offered for the delays to that point
Sheds – The landlord advised that some sheds had fallen into disrepair but had been attended to as part of recent improvement works and no rubbish was stored in the sheds – this aspect of the complaint was not upheld
Plants/Pots – The landlord reported that quotes were being obtained for the replacement of 3 plant pots and 8 plants – an apology was offered for the delays to date and it was proposed that the plants and pots would be in place by May 2019
Cleaning – The landlord pointed to photo evidence, stating that cigarette butts were dropped after an attempt at cleaning was made, but confirmed that the cleaning standards could have been better overall – this aspect of the complaint was upheld

The landlord added that bin collections were missed while works were happening on the estate but this was no longer the case plus bulky item collections had been missed as the vehicle responsible was at full capacity but this would not happen again – these aspects of the complaint were upheld

The landlord advised that estate walkabouts had occurred during November 2018 to January 2019 according to its own records and some problems had been identified such as dusting of window sills – this aspect of the complaint was not upheld

Parking Bays – The landlord stated that parking bollards had been installed in May 2018 in response to a problem with non-residents using spaces – this aspect of the complaint was not upheld
Caretaker – The landlord was of the view that an allegation of staff misconduct during 2015 to 2016 had been appropriately investigated at the time but details of the outcome could not be divulged due to Data Protection – this aspect of the complaint was not upheld
The landlord added that an apology had already been made regarding the inappropriate comments made about the resident’s mental health – further apologies were made and it was noted that staff were being trained to be ‘Human and Kind, in the way that we communicate in person or in writing, instilling a set of behaviours where all persons (residents and fellow colleagues) are listened to and spoken about with respect’.
MAD Bid (it is not clear from the evidence provided to this Service what this acronym stands for but it appears to relate to a now defunct estate improvement scheme based on resident suggestions) – the landlord set out that the resident’s bid had been successful but it had been decided during 2017 that the work could not proceed due to it clashing with other estate improvement works (it was noted that this decision had already been explained to the resident on 22 November 2017) – this aspect of the complaint was not upheld
£100 compensation was offered by the landlord for time and trouble and inconvenience caused

The resident was offered complaint escalation rights.

The landlord issued a further Stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 3 May 2019. This followed a meeting between one of the landlord’s managers and the resident. The response contained the following outcomes:

Another apology was offered by the landlord for the inappropriate comments about the resident’s mental health with £170 compensation also being offered for this ‘lack of professionalism and carelessness’
The landlord stated that the caretaker had been spoken to about the allegation of misconduct and an assurance was made that this would not happen again
The landlord decided no service charge refund could be offered in regard to estate services provision as it was found that the estate was well maintained and where failures had been reported, they had been responded to
Further compensation of £30 was offered by the landlord for time and effort (bringing the total compensation award to £200)

The resident was given complaint escalation rights again.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 May 2019, advising that the complaint matters were unresolved, mentioning the following points of concern, all of which he stated had been outstanding since 2017 (with the exception of the electrical box):

Drains were broken or blocked
The vehicle gates remained permanently open and the pedestrian gates were broken
Bicycle sheds unsecure and other sheds full of rubbish
Cigarette butts still remain in area by shed
No broken pots or plants had been replaced
Some residents who do not own cars had been given parking bays by a previous member of staff
An electrical box remained broken and hanging away from the wall since 2019
Caretaker staff remain on the estate despite a history of verbally abusing residents
The blockage of the successful MAD bid by a previous member of staff had not been addressed

The £200 compensation offer was refused and the resident asked to escalate the complaint. The resident proposed £750 compensation for the comment about his mental health plus a refund of service charges.

This was followed on 8 June 2019 by a letter from the resident, offering further background to the complaint and confirmation of the resolutions sought – he listed these as:

Repairs to drains
Repairs to both vehicle/pedestrian gates so they could be closed
Repair to electrical box
Restoration of the MAD bid works and monitoring of the relevant member of staff who had intervened with it
Restoration of the remaining plants and pots (the resident advised only 40% had been reinstated)
Securing of the bicycle shed by a padlock
Clearance of rubbish and caretaker’s items from all sheds
Sweeping of grounds and clearance of cigarette butts
Removal of the parking bollards
Transfer of caretaker staff from the estate
Refund of 2017-2019 service charges for him and other residents plus £750 compensation for the comments about his mental health

Internal landlord emails on 10 June 2019 indicate that the focus of the 3 May 2019 response had been placed on housing management issues in expectation that the repairs issues would be resolved separately.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails during June-July 2019. The landlord stated that it hoped to respond soon and the resident accepted this and stated he would wait for the full investigation outcome. A further holding email was sent to the resident by the landlord on 31 July 2019.
The landlord offered an update to the resident on 6 September 2019. It was noted that repair works orders had been raised to the gate(s) and the electrical box and the landlord asked if all plant pots had now been replaced. The resident replied the following day advising that all the courtyard pots had been replaced but 4 were outstanding outside another part of the block.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 November 2019 and 20 December 2019, requesting an update on his complaints. He then wrote to the landlord on 31 January 2020, reminding it of the outstanding aspects of his complaint.
Internal landlord emails during February 2020 demonstrate that the landlord was seeking to establish whether residents were charged (as part of their rental liability) for the maintenance of the pedestrian and vehicle gates.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2020, advising that the pandemic was causing some delays in regard to repairs but that the complaint had not been forgotten about.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 June 2020, repeating the complaint issues that were still outstanding and now seeking £1,500 compensation for the mental health comments plus approximately £1,000 in 2017-2020 service charge reimbursement.
The landlord issued the Stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2020, concluding that:

Historic matters (beyond 6 months prior to the original complaint being made in January 2019) had not been reviewed in line with its Complaints Policy
Stage 1 response – the landlord identified that the response had referred to historic matters it should not have and that separate areas of concern had incorrectly been grouped together into a single complaint; the landlord noted that the complaint had been left open awaiting resolution of the issues being complained about
Blocked/broken drains – the landlord identified that heavy rainfall was causing drains to fill up but a CCTV survey had been undertaken and found no defects so no further action would be taken
Broken gates – the landlord stated that repairs had been carried out multiple times (as recently as April 2020) due to vandalism but it was accepted that there had been periods of delay where the gates had not been working and communications could have been better; the landlord added that it would write again within 4 weeks to confirm further actions but no service charge rebate was offered as no charge is apportioned for these gates
Electrical box hanging off wall (since March 2019) – the landlord offered an apology for this delay and stated that a works order had been raised again to be completed during July 2020
Sheds – the landlord advised that there had been delay due to staff changes and warning notices being required but the clearance and securing of sheds had been completed
Bicycle shed – the landlord offered an apology for delays due to staff changes but stated that the securing of the shed had now been completed
Cigarette butts – the landlord explained that it could not stop butts being dropped but the estate services team had addressed this and a warning letter had been sent to the persons suspected of dropping the butts
Plant pots – the landlord stated that damaged pots in communal areas had been replaced (at expense to the landlord) but it was not required to replace all of the pots that had been broken
Parking bays – the landlord had found no evidence of parking bays being given out for free and it was advised that the bollards were there to secure bays being used, or potentially to be used; however, the landlord confirmed it had begun a review process, including a resident consultation, but residents presently with bays would need to give these up before a new scheme could be implemented (no timescale for this was offered)
Caretakers – the landlord stated that comments about the previous caretakers had been considered appropriately with apologies offered
2016 MAD bid – the landlord set out that no further comment would be made due to the length of time that had passed and that it had been addressed in the Stage 1 complaint response; an apology was offered because information about the new estate improvement budget had not been made clear and this was signposted
Service charge rebate – the landlord advised that a rebate was not warranted given the complaint process could only review the previous 6 months and no other resident had reported maintenance issues
Compensation – the landlord decided that £650 compensation should be awarded broken down as follows:

£300 – Time, trouble and inconvenience for delays and poor communications regarding the 2 gates & electrical box

£100 – Time, trouble and inconvenience for poor communication and delays regarding drains

£100 – Time, trouble and inconvenience overall for having to chase for all other items raised

£150 – Poor complaint handling over Stages 1 and 2

The resident was given 6 months to accept this offer and the landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2020, expressing continued dissatisfaction as follows:

Broken gates – the resident claimed that there was no evidence gates had been tampered with by vandals and that the problem was instead likely to be a failure to maintain them by the landlord with a broken electrical box having been left neglected for years
Plant pots – the resident stated these were broken by the landlord’s contractors and a promise was previously made by the landlord that all damaged plants and pots would be replaced
Parking bays – the resident complained that bollards had been installed without consultation and no payments were being made for use of the bays
Caretakers – the resident advised that problems with inappropriate behaviour by caretaking staff were first reported in 2015 and no formal apology had been issued by management involved when a member of staff incorrectly stated the resident had a mental illness
2016 MAD bid – the resident claimed that the landlord’s management had previously advised him that objections expressed by staff in 2017 had been inappropriate and so the successful funding would be reinstated under a different grant
Compensation – the resident stated he was seeking £2,500 compensation for the comments made about him by members of staff and a return of the 2017-2020 service charges

A follow up response was sent by the landlord dated 10 August 2020 which concluded that:

Broken gates – the landlord claimed that there was no evidence of mechanical failure and the suspicion was that vandalism was the cause of the problem so the gates would be left open for emergency access until a long-term solution was found but a new works order had been raised for the electrical box
Plant pots – the landlord advised that no further pots would be added to the communal area as no policy had been found to show that all pots in a communal area had to be replaced
Parking bays – the landlord advised no further information would be provided but the abandoned vehicle report would be passed on
Caretakers – the landlord reiterated that apologies had been made and it believed it had investigated allegations appropriately but £50 compensation was added by way of further apology
Neighbours – the landlord referred to the Complaints Policy, advising that it could only liaise with the resident regarding the complaint and not other petition signatories; however, it was added that £100 compensation would be paid to the resident’s 2 neighbours as well as £50 to the resident because it had failed to make its policy clear
Compensation – the landlord reiterated that no compensation was being issued due to service charges paid for caretaking or vehicle/pedestrian gate issues but £350 was being added to the £650 previously offered (bringing the total to £1,000), broken down as follows:

£250 – Complaint handling failures

£50 – Expectations being falsely raised in regard to the MAD bid

£50 – Comments made by the caretaker’s manager

Closing – the landlord explained that it could not investigate the multiple historic issues but apologies were offered due to the individual areas of concern not being logged as separate complaints and it was noted that measures had been taken to avoid this happening again

The landlord signposted the resident again to the Ombudsman.

The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 August 2020, in response to the above landlord follow up letter:

Broken gates – the resident advised that promises had been made for the gates to be closed in July 2020 but it now seemed that they would remain open until 2021 and the resident continued to dispute the landlord’s findings that the problem with the gates was due to vandalism – the resident stated the fault was due to the gates being installed at a low cost and misuse by the landlord’s contractors during 2017-18
Plant pots – the resident again claimed that promises had been made for all plant pots damaged by the landlord’s contractors to be replaced and the landlord was obliged to do this but it had not happened
Parking bays – the resident stated that the current system is unfair as some favoured residents are being allowed to use parking bays for free
Caretakers – the resident noted that the relevant line manager had failed to apologise for the conduct of caretakers and even tried to justify comments made about his mental health; video evidence was also referred to of an incident where a caretaker had allegedly used noisy equipment
Compensation – the resident stated that reports of poor cleaning standards had been made to staff from 2017 onwards and the offer of £1,000 was being rejected

The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 October 2020, reiterating the previous review outcome.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 October 2020, expressing continued dissatisfaction on the following grounds:

The resident was seeking reinstatement of funding of his original successful MAD bid
He stated that his demands for replacement of broken plant pots was not unreasonable given the landlord’s contractor was responsible for the breakages
The resident reiterated that the standard of cleaning on the estate had been poor since April 2017 and so a refund of service charges for the period April 2017 to April 2020 was appropriate; he added that the poor cleaning was ongoing and had led to a recent visit by the local authority and a rodent and bed bug infestation
The resident complained that compensation had not been considered for comments made by it about his mental health
The resident noted that electronic gates had remained open for 4 years, despite promises to close them – he claimed that this was contributing to anti-social behaviour and crime

The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 7 September 2020 on the grounds that all outstanding issues had not been resolved and the comments about his mental health had not been addressed appropriately by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision, we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. This Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

Estate services

Since at least 2018, the resident has consistently raised a series of concerns with the landlord’s management of the estate. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for providing these services under the conditions of the tenancy and associated policies, for which the resident pays a service charge. Although the landlord has maintained communication with the resident when concerns have been raised, some of these issues remain unresolved years later and the landlord has acknowledged that it has failed on occasions to meet its obligations to the resident.
The resident has reported concerns about the standard of cleaning on the estate and the conduct of the caretaker since at least February 2018. In response, the landlord has stated that it reviewed cleaning levels in March 2018, March 2019 and August 2020. It informed the resident that it believed cleaning standards to be good except for in March 2019 when it confirmed one area could have been maintained to a better standard. Standards of cleaning delivered can be a subjective matter and it is not for the Ombudsman to decide on quality of cleaning. The landlord has though acted reasonably in reviewing cleaning performance on several occasions and advising the resident of the outcomes of these reviews.
However, with the exception of the period November 2018 to February 2019 (for which estate inspection records have been provided), it is not clear how the landlord has reached its conclusions in deciding cleaning standards were good. It may therefore be beneficial for the landlord to explain to the resident how it makes assessments of cleaning performance. This would provide reassurance and clarity to the resident about the landlord’s quality checking.
Given the reports made by the resident regarding the caretaker’s conduct, the landlord took the decision during 2019 that the caretaker could be moved away from the estate. This was a reasonable course of action by the landlord in an effort to resolve the dispute that had arisen between the resident and member of staff. This demonstrated a reasonable exercise of discretion and flexibility on the part of the landlord in its attempts to achieve a resolution.
It is not disputed that the landlord has been aware of faults with the pedestrian and vehicle gate system to the estate since 2017. The landlord is of the view that these problems have been caused by misuse and vandalism while the resident has reported that the landlord’s contractors were at fault and that there are problems with the gate system itself. In any case, under the terms of its Repairs Policy, the landlord should have repaired the gates within a maximum of 60 calendar days but the gates still do not function as they should. This is not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s repair obligations although it should be noted that the landlord has concluded no service charge is paid for these gates. It is also relevant that the impact on the resident of delayed repairs would not be as significant for a communal repair as it would be for a repair to his own home. The resident has referred to an increase in anti-social behaviour (ASB) in relation to this issue – any such issues are not the focus of this investigation, which is limited to issues considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident should report any ongoing ASB issues to the landlord for consideration through its ASB procedure.
There was a further communal repair delay with the electrical box that the resident reported was hanging away from a wall. The resident raised this issue within the original complaint that the landlord responded to in March 2019. The landlord stated in its Stage 1 response that the repair would be carried out that day. No evidence has been supplied to the Ombudsman to confirm when this repair was completed but it was still outstanding at the point the Stage 2 response was issued in July 2020. This was again inappropriate and not in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The resident has been raising regular requests since at least January 2019 regarding the parking arrangements on the estate. The resident has asked the landlord, on several occasions since his complaint was made, for bollards to be removed from parking bays. The landlord opened a parking consultation to residents in December 2019 – this was a reasonable course of action to determine how to proceed but the landlord has not provided adequate explanation as to why there was a delay in beginning the consultation and has failed to communicate to the resident the outcome of that consultation. This is unreasonable as the resident has no clarity as to the landlord’s plans for parking arrangements on the estate.
The resident has asked the landlord to replace a number of damaged pots and plants in the communal areas of the estate since at least January 2019. Within its Stage 1 complaint response of March 2019, the landlord stated that replacements would be in place by May 2019. It was not until December 2019 that the landlord has been able to demonstrate it reviewed this again. At that point, there were still plant replacements that the landlord acknowledged were outstanding. The landlord reviewed this again in January 2020 but has not provided records of the outcome of this review. By the time of the Stage 2 response in July 2020, the landlord had decided to inform the resident that it would not be able to replace all plants and pots. It is not for the Ombudsman to order replacement of all pots and plants but the delay and lack of communication by the landlord was unreasonable.
It is not disputed that the resident made a successful MAD bid but that the related work was stopped by the landlord in 2017. In its complaint responses, the landlord has justified this approach by referring back to a letter sent to the resident in November 2017. A copy of this letter has not been made available to the Ombudsman and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the landlord made promises to carry out the works at a future point. It is not disputed that the MAD bid system is no longer in operation. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to signpost the resident to make a new bid under the present estate improvement system. In addition, this matter occurred well over a year prior to the complaint to the landlord and, as such, would usually be considered to be outside the remit of the complaints process. Nevertheless, the landlord has given this matter consideration, demonstrating that it has used its discretion and been resolution focused.
It is not disputed that there were unreasonable delays by the landlord in securing a bicycle shed and clearing other sheds on the estate ready for use by residents. The landlord apologised for these delays in its Stage 2 complaint response and the resident has confirmed that it has resolved these issues.
The detriment to the resident on account of these communal repairs and estate management issues was unlikely to have been as significant as would be the case if the repair issues affected his home for example. Nonetheless, an amount of discretionary compensation is considered appropriate to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, both in progressing these issues and having to live with the inconvenience of the outstanding repairs matters in particular. The landlord’s overall compensation offer included compensation of £550 in response to the estate management failings. This is a proportionate amount in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies which considers this a reasonable amount for service failure or maladministration where there may be no permanent impact on the resident.

Comments about resident’s mental health

It is not disputed that a member of the landlord’s staff made inappropriate comments. These were made in an internal landlord email exchange that was mistakenly forwarded to the resident. The landlord subsequently advised that the comments were about the resident’s neighbour rather than the resident. However, regardless of who the comments were about, they were inappropriate and indicated that the landlord believed complaints about services were disingenuous or vexatious.
When the resident initially reported this incident, the landlord focused its apology on the error in the internal email being divulged to him. This was unreasonable as the landlord’s focus should have been on the inappropriate comment itself rather than how it came to be passed to the resident.
However, the landlord made appropriate apologies in its Stage 1, Stage 1 follow up and Stage 2 responses. Within its Stage 1 complaint response, it also stated that it would be training staff and its follow-up response of 10 August 2020 awarded £50 compensation by way of apology for the conduct of the caretakers.
The multiple apologies, compensation and assurance that staff would be trained to avoid such comments in future were a reasonable combination of measures to demonstrate that the landlord took this matter seriously and considered the impact of the comments on the resident.

Complaint handling

The landlord has acknowledged that there were delays in providing responses at both stages of its complaints procedure. It took 2 months for a Stage 1 response to be issued to the resident and 15 months for a Stage 2 response to be issued. These were unreasonable delays and outside of the timescales within the landlord’s own complaints procedure.
The landlord’s complaints policy requires it to keep a resident updated where there is a delay. The landlord did offer updates to the resident within the 15-month Stage 2 complaint period but these were irregular and the resident frequently had to chase responses. The delays and failures to keep the resident consistently updated meant that the landlord failed to put things right at the earliest opportunity and the resident was left unsure as to how the complaint investigations were proceeding.
Nonetheless, across the Stage 2 response and Stage 2 follow up response, the landlord has awarded a total of £400 for its complaint handling failures. This amount is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a landlord has repeatedly failed to meaningfully engage with the substance of a complaint or shown significant failures to follow a complaints procedure so is considered to be a proportionate remedy.

Compensation

Overall, the landlord has offered a total amount of compensation of £1,000 to the resident for the various failures it has identified – this is a significant level of compensation. It is within the upper range of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and considered an amount that is appropriate for occasions where ‘there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both.’ The total award would therefore be considered reasonable given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures identified in its estate management.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress for acknowledged service failures relating to comments it made about the resident’s mental health.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the service failures in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed unreasonably in dealing with the estate management concerns reported by the resident. These included quality of estate cleaning, the maintenance of estate gates, communal repairs, parking arrangement enquiries, the maintenance of sheds and bicycle sheds, the replacement of damaged communal plants and pots and the outcome of the 2016 MAD bid. The landlord has apologised and its compensation offer of £550 was fair given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord made inappropriate comments about the resident within internal emails that were subsequently released to the resident. The landlord has apologised and stated that staff have undertaken relevant training. These actions and its compensation offer of £50 were fair given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord delayed unreasonably in considering the resident’s Stage 1 and Stage 2 complaints. It has apologised and its compensation offer of £400 was fair given the circumstances of the case.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the compensation of £1,000 previously offered to the resident within 4 weeks of the date of this report if it has not already done so.
The landlord to write to the resident to:

a) Advise the resident of the estate cleaning standards he can expect and how it reviews these standards

b) Advise the resident how it intends to remedy the pedestrian and vehicle gate issues, provide a timescale for doing this and ensure it updates the resident on progress

c) Advise the resident of the outcome of the December 2019 parking consultation and confirm the current position regarding parking on the estate

d) Signpost the resident again to the current estate improvement system and provide any available guidance on how he can proceed with making an application