One Housing Group Limited (202100246)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100246

One Housing Group Limited

20 December 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 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 handling of the resident’s report of a repair to the communal bike store door.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of a flat in a block owned and managed by the landlord.

Policies, procedures, and agreements

Lease:

The terms of the lease state that the landlord is responsible for keeping the common parts of the block in ‘good repair and condition’. This would include the bike store.
The Fifth Schedule of the lease states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance and repair of the common parts ‘including maintenance and repair of walls, fences, gates and doors adjoining and giving access to the same’.

Repairs and Maintenance policy:

This sets out that the landlord’s service standards, one of which is to ‘provide a 24hour, 7 day a week service to report emergency repairs’.
With regards to ‘Responsive Day to Day Repairs’ it states that its normal working hours are between 8.00am and 6.00pm and that its aim is to arrange an appointment during the first contact and complete the repair in one visit.
The policy sets out the different types of repairs and the timeframes for response:
1. Emergency – attend and make safe within 24 hours and, if possible complete.
2. Urgent – attend within 3 working days and complete within 5 working days.
3. Routine – attend within 5 working days and complete within 20 working days.
With regards to communal repairs it states that it will manage such repairs to the same timescales and standards as internal repairs.

Compensation policy:

This sets out that the landlord will consider discretionary compensation when, for example, it has failed to meet its service targets; it has not acted reasonably; and the complainant has suffered inconvenience. The policy states that the landlord can consider discretionary compensation for inconvenience and ‘a gesture can be paid to cover time, trouble, distress etc’.

Summary of events

The resident has provided evidence to show that on 14 October 2020 at 5:13pm he reported a repair request to the landlord via a messaging system. The message read ‘I would like to report a security issue on the bike room at [the building]. The door does close/lock’. There is no evidence of the landlord’s response to this message.
On 15 October 2020 at 10:18am the resident again messaged the landlord with the same message as above. The landlord responded by way of a message which said, ‘Thank you for informing us. We will look to raise a job for this and get back to with an update and reference’. A few hours later, the landlord messaged the resident saying, ‘could you advise the location/alphabet of the bike store?’. There is no evidence of the resident’s response to this message.
The landlord’s records show that an engineer attended on the evening of 15 October 2020. The engineer’s report shows the following:
1. Fault: Flat x reports the MED will not open so no one can leave the building it’s been like that for the last half an hour Garage door has also been locked – please open as it is not allowing access – please attend and remedy.
2. It has been reported that the bike store door on LG is not locking please can this be linked to J0VHX7 as it may be a broken break glass that the issue.
The engineer’s findings are confirmed in the report as:
1. REPORTED FAULT: Flat x reports the MED will not open so no one can leave the building its been like that for the last half an hour Garage door has also been locked.
2. ACTION TAKEN: When I arrived on the site, all readers and RTE was working properly. I did not find any problems with the door and door entry system. I checked and tested all doors in the building.
3. JOB STATUS: Complete.
The resident logged a formal complaint on 19 October 2020. He said that he had reported the bike store door not properly working since 15 October (ref J0VHX7). An engineer attended that evening however nothing could be done since he had no access to the appropriate (service) cupboard. The resident said he reported this back to the landlord the next morning but it had not been repaired.
The resident said that he had been informed by another tenant that their bike had been stolen and the resident believed this was due to the landlord’s delay in repairing the door.
The resident said that he had spoken to managing agent and they had told him the repair was not completed because they did not have access to the service cupboard. The resident says that the access restrictions have caused delays to repairs in the past and this is causing tenants unnecessary inconvenience due to the landlord not being able to co-ordinate with contractors and give them access when required.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 October 2020.
The internal correspondence between the landlord and the management company on 21 October 2020 shows that the resident had reported further issues with doors, including the bike store door. It was agreed that the engineer would attend the next morning and the landlord said it would ensure a Property Manager was also in attendance to allow access where needed. The managing agent’s email to the landlord acknowledged problems with access to the riser (service) cupboard and said, ‘we struggled to access some areas whilst on site with the caretaker yesterday’.
It was agreed at this point that a further job would be raised for repairs to the doors between the garage and residential areas; the bin store; the communal front door; and bike stores and that the Property Manager would have the relevant keys for access.
The landlord’s records show that an engineer attended on 22 October 2020 and the door repairs were completed. The engineer’s report shows:
1. REPORTED FAULT: Several doors in number x and number x aren’t locking including bike sheds and main entrance door to xxxx.
2. ACTION TAKEN: Traced fault to the krone strip in xxxx cabinet. Bypassed the Krone strip and all doors locked. Tested all doors operating correctly.
3. JOB STATUS: Complete.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 9 November 2020 shows that it had completed its investigations and had concluded that the resident made mistakes ‘so there was no apology due; an apology is an admission you got something wrong and, in this instance, we didn’t, it seems the customer did’.
The landlord then issued its formal complaint response on 12 November 2020:
1. It confirmed its understanding of the complaint was regarding the delay in repairing the bike store door, and the associated issue of contractors not being able to access the service cupboard.
2. It said it had reviewed its records and noted that the original repair report on 15 October 2020 related to issues with the main entrance doors, lobby entrance doors along with the garage roller shutter. It said that the bike store door was not mentioned at this point. Its contractor attended on 15 October 2020 and opened the garage roller shutter but was unable to rectify the other issues, due to this visit being out of hours and there being, no staff onsite to grant access to riser cupboards. A return call was booked in for 19 October 2020 and contractor completed the repair to main entrance and lobby entrance doors and the garage roller shutter were returned to service.
3. As for the bike store door, it said that this was reported on 21 October 2020 and it arranged for the contractor to attend the next day and a repair was completed on 22 October 2020.
4. With regards to the issue of contractors having access to the service cupboard, it explained that it was not always possible to ensure access at short notice out of hours for reactive repairs. It said it was not always known at the outset of a repair if access was required until the contractor had visited.
5. In conclusion, it said that with the repair to the bike store, ‘the reporting dates are a misunderstanding in that you thought you had reported the fault on the 15 October 2020 but the matter was reported on the 21 October 2020’. For that reason, the complaint was not upheld.
6. As for access to services cupboards, it said it could permit access to most blocks but for secure areas, works must be planned with the relevant staff and teams beforehand.
7. The landlord confirmed that this was its final complaint response and the resident could now refer the matter to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair report(s) and this includes an assessment of whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman is guided by its Dispute Resolution Principles, which are, ‘be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair process; put things right and learn from outcomes’.
Looking at the facts of the case, the landlord’s final complaint response states that the bike store door was not reported by the resident until 21 October 2020 and it was repaired the next day. The landlord has said in its final complaint response that there had been a misunderstanding on the part of the resident about the date this issue had first been reported.
However, the evidence seen by the Ombudsman (in the form of screenshots of the resident’s messages with the landlord) show that the bike store door was in fact initially reported on 14 October 2020 just after 5pm and again the next morning at around 10am. The screenshots show that the landlord acknowledged the report and advised the resident that a job would be raised for this.
The evidence in the form of the engineer’s reports shows that a job was raised on 15 October 2020 for the garage door, main door and the bike store door. An engineer attended on 15 October 2020 and the report shows that the garage door and the main door were checked and no faults were found. The report does not categorically state that the bike store door was checked at this time.
Having considered this evidence, the Ombudsman is of the view that the landlord did not act appropriately in claiming that the resident had made an error and/or had misunderstood the dates he reported the bike store door problem. On the contrary, it would appear that the landlord has in fact erred and/or misunderstood the dates for this repair.
The engineer’s report on 15 October 2020 does not clearly state that the bike store door was checked at this visit. The job was set up to look at the main door and the garage door and a separate note was made about the bike store door and this was to be linked to the other two doors. However, the engineer’s findings only refer to the main door and the garage door. The report does not specifically and clearly state that the bike store door was checked at this time. This oversight would be a service failure.
The landlord had an opportunity to carry out a repair to the bike store door on 15 October 2020 but failed to do so. It should have checked this reported fault and it failed to do so. The records show that the bike store door was not repaired until a week later on 22 October 2020 following further chasers from the resident.
The landlord’s internal emails during its investigation of the complaint show that it had concluded that no errors had been made on its part and that the resident had in fact made a mistake about the dates, and therefore, it did not need to apologise. The Ombudsman has not been provided with the evidence the landlord is relying upon to say that the resident made a mistake with the dates of reporting the bike store door. However, looking at the evidence that has been made available, it is clear that (a) the resident did report the bike store door on 15 October, and this was acknowledged by the landlord at the time; and (b) a job had been raised for the engineer to check the bike store door (as well as the garage and main doors) on his visit on 15 October – but this was not completed. This would be a service failure on the part of the landlord.
With regards to the resident’s general concerns about the difficulties contractors had in accessing the service cupboards, it is not unusual for such cupboards to be locked and secured to safeguard health and safety and reduce unauthorised access. As such, access to service cupboards would need to be requested. The resident’s concerns are duly noted, but in this case, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the bike store door repair was delayed due to any access issues. The available evidence shows, as explained above, that an error was made and although the bike store door repair was logged, it was not actioned by the attending engineer.
The resident has said that due to the delay in repairing the bike store door, another tenant had their bike stolen. This is of course unfortunate, but this report can only look at the actions of the landlord in respect of the resident’s own complaint and the impact it has had on the resident. As such, we cannot address the possible adverse impact on another tenant and/or make a determination with regards to the landlord’s responsibility for the other tenant’s loss. The affected tenant would need to raise a formal complaint with the landlord about this.
Looking at the matter overall, the Ombudsman is satisfied that there was service failure by the landlord in regard to the delay in completing the repair and its assertion that the resident had made an error with regards to the dates.
When considering redress for service failure, the Ombudsman takes into account the landlord’s compensation policy as well as its own discretion to determine the most appropriate remedy given the circumstances of the complaint.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation the Ombudsman looks at any inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It also considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord and the impact on the resident. In this case, taking into account all the above, the Ombudsman considers that an award of £75 compensation would be appropriate in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the communal bike store door.

Reasons

The landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately and/or in a timely manner to the resident’s repair report.

Orders and recommendations

Order

The landlord should, within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. pay the resident £75 compensation in recognition of any inconvenience caused by the service failure identified in its handling of the repair reports.
Evidence of the payment of compensation to be provided to this Service within four weeks.