Nottingham City Homes Limited (202121932)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121932

Nottingham City Homes Limited

4 March 2024

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:
1. Decision to allocate a single point of contact to the resident (SPOC).
2. Investigation in to staff conduct.
3. Handling of reports of issues with poor caretaking.
4. Handling of the complaint including the request for compensation.

Background

The residents are leaseholders of the property, a 2 bedroom upper floor maisonette, and have owned the property since 2017. The landlord is a housing association.

Summary of events

Throughout March and April 2021 there was correspondence between the residents and the landlord regarding clarification over various caretaking responsibilities at their block. During this time the caretaker confirmed she cleaned the windows in the block and swept walkways and stairwells. The landlord carried out an unannounced visit with the caretaker and caretaker manager (CM) and found the block clean and tidy.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord told the residents:
1. Windows were cleaned but it appreciated they still looked dirty as the outside windows were not cleaned. However, that was not part of its responsibility so it had contacted the asset management team about a one off clean.
2. Aside from the waste left by contractors/a project team, there was no fly tipping. It was going to arrange for the waste to be removed.
3. Litter was picked up weekly.
4. It was going to arrange for ‘Caretaking Services’ posters to be reprinted to ensure details were correct.
5. The caretaker helped with the fire alarm testing as it was a 2 person job.
6. The block was inspected quarterly by the CM.
7. Signage for the block had not been ordered yet but enquiries would be made to find out if it formed part of overall works.
8. ‘MetroStor’ related to waste solution bin stores to secure waste and recycling. It was being reviewed and a decision would be made on that type of bin store solution later in the year.
The residents reported to the landlord on 4 July 2021 that cigarette ends were left in the communal staircase and there was an issue with the general cleanliness of the block. They were also waiting for the revised Caretaking Services leaflet and for posters to be updated.
The residents reported further concerns to the landlord on 11 July 2021, about the services provided by the caretaking team. In particular, they said the landlord delivered a letter to residents about cigarette ends being left in the staircase on 2 July 2021 but by 9 July 2021 they were still there and had not been cleaned up. They were unhappy with the amount paid in service charges when they felt the service was falling short and that the caretaking team had not contacted them despite requests for it to do so. This was acknowledged by the landlord the following day.
On 12 July 2021 the residents contacted the landlord about the glass in a fire door that had been broken earlier that day, not being replaced. They commented that the door remained in the same condition until the evening, posing a safety risk. The CM had visited the property that day and checked that the repair to the door had been logged, which it had following a police visit. The caretaker had also cleaned up the area as there was some blood on the floor. One of the residents spoke with the caretaker manager later that day about concerns over caretaking, including the cigarette ends. The CM explained that some of the work was not the caretaker’s responsibility.
An internal email sent by landlord staff on 23 July 2021 said someone had called the residents and it had been a “heated discussion”. They had been advised the caretaking service was being delivered, and that 2 people had been out to inspect the caretaking unplanned and did not find issues. The broken glass in the door had been boarded up but cigarette ends left by another resident may have been missed. It said the residents said:
1. No caretaker had attended their building court all week.
2. No sweeping had been done as there were fragments of glass left behind from the broken window.
3. There were leaves on the stairs.
4. There was blood spillage from the entrance door up the stairs to another resident’s flat which was left all day.
5. There was dust on the hand rails and notice boards which they felt were never cleaned.
6. There were carpet fragments up the stairs that had been there since last week.
7. There was a spillage outside number 11 that was not cleaned.
8. The courtyard was never attended to.
9. They had a concern the caretaker had had no training and did not have the tools she needed.
It was noted the residents were told their concerns would be passed on, but one of the residents had started shouting and said he would refer the matter to his local councillors. The landlord said it was not sure what more it could do as it was confident the caretaker was working.
The residents then wrote to their local councillors on 25 July 2021 and complained that:
1. Glass in a fire door in the staircase was broken on either 11 or 12 July 2021. There was broken glass on the floor and the caretaking team did not ensure the door was made safe or signage left on 12 July 2021 before leaving site. It was boarded up on 13 July 2021 but the door was ineffective as a fire door and had not been repaired in 2 weeks.
2. Fire alarms were not tested on 15 and 22 July 2021.
3. They had been raising issues with caretaking since February 2021 and although issues were passed to the caretaking manager, they did not get a response and a phone call was not returned on time. They felt they had not had questions answered.
4. A member of landlord staff made offensive comments. They apparently claimed a resident had damaged the fire door when England lost a football match and debris was on the staircase as that was the way residents chose to live.
A copy of the complaint to the council was sent to the landlord on 26 July 2021 with a request for it to respond to the points made by the residents. A partial response was sent to the council the following day.
On the same day, an internal email between landlord staff stated that £131 a year was paid for the service and it was felt “standards delivered at this site are acceptable for the level of service charges that the residents pay annually”. Concerns were raised though about the conduct of the residents and that a member of staff had felt harassed.
On 27 July 2021 the council told the residents that the glass in the door had apparently been replaced the day before; something the residents acknowledged the same day. It also notified the residents on 12 August 2021 that it had been informed they had been allocated a SPOC by the landlord. It said it could not comment further on their complaint as they would need to liaise with the SPOC.
An internal email sent by the CM to a colleague on 28 July 2021, in response to the 23 July 2021 email, explained a staff member felt intimidated by the residents. It said:
1. The building had been swept on 13, 20 and 27 July 2021.
2. The site was open so leaves and dust could get in.
3. A blood spillage by another resident one morning was cleaned up by the afternoon and was witnessed by other residents.
4. There was one piece of carpet fluff on the floor as a result of another resident carrying carpet in the building.
5. The courtyard did not form part of the caretaker’s role, but she did pick litter from there occasionally. It could arrange for the estate team to attend the courtyard on an ad hoc basis.
6. The service for the site was just 4.5 hours per week and was not every day, so sweeping would not be every day.
7. Some issues were caused by tenants’ behaviour, such as smoking.
On 12 August 2021 a member of staff complained about one of the residents’ behaviour towards her. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the residents and explained they had conducted themselves in an “aggressive and intimidating manner” which had caused “discomfort, upset and concern for the health and safety of our staff”. As a result, it had assigned a SPOC and all contact must be directed to them and no other staff.
The residents wrote to the council and said part of their complaint was about the person allocated to be their SPOC, so by her dealing with the complaint, it was a conflict of interest. An internal email between landlord staff shows consideration being given to the SPOC responding to the complaint. It said the residents were leaseholders and “have in fact made complaints against all areas of the business over the years” and not just about the SPOC. It was felt she was independent and any issues could be escalated to her manager/director.
The SPOC responded to the residents’ complaint on 18 August 2021. She said:
1. A copy of the Caretaking Service was provided.
2. An external window cleaning service could not be provided.
3. Enquiries had been made relating to the new signage and whether the project team would be conducting a clean-up exercise.
4. The Decent Neighbourhood Team was continuously looking at ways to improve estates and it was reviewing “the MetroStor Trial”, and a decision would be made later that year.
The complaint response detailed the contact between the residents and the landlord throughout March and April 2021, concluding that no concerns had been found with the caretaking service at that time. They detailed the outcome of the CM’s visit to the building on 12 July 2021 in relation to the broken fire door and explained the steps taken to address the repair. It then gave a comprehensive account of the landlord’s contact with the residents that day in relation to the caretaker’s hours, the Caretaking Services poster, and the door repair.
A further email was received from the residents about cigarette ends, brick dust not being swept for a year and the amount of time the caretaker spent at the building. They also re-raised the issue about broken glass being left from the door and the door not being repaired. This was escalated to the repairs service manager on 13 July 2021, who spoke with the resident on 23 July 2021 and said no issues had been found with the Caretaking Services or caretaker. The door had been boarded up/repaired on 26 July 2021 and the cigarette ends were an issue caused by residents discarding them, as with leaving rubbish and not using the shute. It explained no other residents had reported issues and having carried out site visits it was satisfied the Caretaking Services was being delivered to the required standard but she would refer her concerns over debris left by contractors and the erection of signage to be actioned.
The residents sent another complaint to the landlord on 25 January 2022. They said:
1. A SPOC had been appointed when they had not spoken to landlord staff for many months and had not been aggressive or intimidating and there was no evidence to support that claim.
2. They spoke with the caretaker manager on 12 July 2021 but have no recollection of raising their voice and none of their emails were aggressive or intimidating.
3. They did not raise their voice in a telephone call on 23 July 2021. They terminated the call and said they would refer the matter to the councillors that they had reported their concerns to also.
4. The crux of their complaint was that: the SPOC should not have dealt with their complaint as it was a conflict of interest; the majority of their concerns had not been addressed; their concerns about caretaking were justified; and they had a concern over the safety of the building. They said:
  1. The door repair should have been a priority and non-fireproof wood should not have been used to seal up the door.
  2. The landlord had not said how the insurance would have been affected.
  3. Caretakers left site without making the area safe and ensuring signage was put up.
  4. The landlord had not said if all leaseholder queries should be sent to the leasehold team.
  5. There was nothing on the noticeboard and they had been informed on several occasions that the marketing team was dealing with that, but nothing had happened.
  6. They had kept a diary and submitted photos to show issues with the caretaking.
  7. The way the fire door was boarded up put the building at risk from a safety perspective.
The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord the same day. It then wrote to the resident on 8 February 2022 apologising that it would take more than 10 days to respond, and saying it hoped to respond by 22 February 2022.
On 15 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the residents and noted one of them had Covid-19 and could not therefore meet with one of its staff as had been planned. It said a meeting could not take place until the week commencing 21 February 2022, assuming the resident tested negative. As a result it had to extend the complaint target date again to allow time for the meeting to take place. The new target date was 8 March 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 7 March 2022. It:
1. Said it saw no issue with the person appointed as their SPOC dealing with their enquiries.
2. Explained the steps taken to repair a broken communal door and why it felt the approach was reasonable.
3. Found no evidence of poor caretaking.
4. Apologised if repairs to the communal door did not take place within agreed timescales. It was going to investigate whether the communal lighting was on all the time and look in to the matter of signage.
5. Apologised if there was confusion over a site visit on 8 February 2022. It explained it was meant to be unannounced in order to consider the issues raised.
6. Did not uphold the complaint.
On 4 April 2022, the residents asked for their complaint to be escalated as:
1. In telephone calls on 13 and 23 July 2021 the SPOC stated that the debris was there because “that is the way residents choose to live”. She also stated that damage to the fire door had been caused by a resident because England had lost the football final. They found the comments offensive and they were not addressed by the SPOC in August 2021 or at stage 1.
2. They objected to having a SPOC as they had not been aggressive and considered the claim that they had to be defamatory and the landlord had no policy to allocate a SPOC. They wanted to know what complaints had been made against them to warrant the action taken.
3. The landlord had not addressed their concern over the fire door not being mended promptly and the safety issue that caused as it was the only door out for those on the first floor. It was left in a dangerous condition for 24 hours and had plywood on it until it was repaired.
4. They wanted to know if it affected the building insurance and whether it was known that a contractor did not attend on 12 July 2021. They wanted to know why it was not deemed an urgent repair, when the glass came in to stock, and when the work was scheduled for.
5. They wanted the caretaker charge reduced to reflect the poor service.
6. In terms of the formal complaint, they detailed their concerns about the landlord extending deadlines, delays in the landlord posting and emailing letters, unannounced telephone calls, a missed meeting, and poor conduc during a meeting.
The landlord acknowledged the residents wanted their complaint escalated, on 5 April 2022 and said they would receive a response within 20 working days, by 5 May 2022 (taking in to account bank holidays). The landlord then issued its stage 2 response on 3 May 2022, as follows:
1. It accepted that, as a complaint made on 21 July 2021 referred to the SPOC, they should not have investigated the complaint. It apologised for this.
2. It had spoken to the member of staff involved about making comments that had upset the resident, but they had denied the allegations. Therefore, without evidence of wrongdoing, it was unable to take any further action. It said this had not been addressed at stage 1 because it had not been mentioned in the complaint.
3. The person allocated to deal with the residents’ queries was incorrect in her understanding that access to the building was by fob alone, as she was not aware that the security door had been broken.
4. It would not disclose the nature of reports made that prompted it to allocate a SPOC to protect staff confidentiality, but it supported staff that felt harassed by residents when carrying out their job.
5. Although it noted his record setting out issues with caretaking, it did not uphold the complaint because the CM disputed the allegations and the unannounced visits did not find any issues. It would therefore not reduce the service charge and it had provided details of the Caretaking Services in the past.
6. The deadline to respond to the complaint was extended and it noted the resident was unhappy the letters issued were sent later than they were dated. However, this did not cause any detriment and confirmed a telephone conversation had taken place.
7. It apologised for any confusion over a meeting that was to take place on 8 February 2022. It said telephone calls were unannounced, and the visit that took place was also unannounced.
8. To resolve the complaint it was going to ensure dates on letters were checked before being emailed or sent out by post, ensure the Customer Services Centre sent letters out promptly and ensure that those individuals mentioned within complaints, were not responsible for an investigation.

The lease, landlord’s obligations and policies and procedures

The lease says that at the residents’ cost, the landlord is responsible for caretaking and cleaning the building as well as maintenance of grounds.
The landlord produced a document entitled ‘Caretaking services’ which it says was drafted incorrectly. It said it provided “services from Mondays to Friday between 8am and 4pm, plus for four hours a day on weekends and bank holidays”. Every day it will inspect all floor areas, remove bulky waste and report any repairs that need doing in communal areas. It also says every day it will “sweep or vacuum all ground floor area, including foyers and lifts”. Every week it will also clean and litter pick outside areas, mop, vacuum or buff all floors, sweep and mop stairways and wipe woodwork, walls and glass surfaces.
Another document has been provided entitled ‘Caretaking Services’ which the landlord says is the correct version. It said services were provided between 8am and 12pm Monday to Friday. Every weekday it would do things like inspect all floor, stairs and clean spillages as required, remove bulky waste and report any repairs that need doing in communal areas. Every week it would sweep or mop all communal areas and stairways where necessary, inspect all floor, stairs and clean spillages as required and litter pick the external areas as well as other things.
The landlord’s Repair and Maintenance Standards says it will “always try to get to an emergency repair callout straight away (within 4 hours) depending on the urgency of the situation and in any case no longer than 24 hours.” It says if it cannot complete the repair within the allotted time scale it will arrange a follow up appointment on the appropriate priority. It will attend 80% of priority repairs within 7 days, and in any case no longer than 30 days.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says at stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint and issue a response within 10 working days. “If a longer time period is required to carry out the investigation and respond, a further period of up to 10 working days can be agreed. The customer will be advised of this in writing and the reasons for this provided”. A complaint can be escalated to stage 2 and a response will be sent within 20 working days from the date of being advised of the escalation. If there is a need to extend this timescale, the landlord will explain why an extension of up to a further 20 working days has been agreed.
It says in terms of remedies, it can consider a “discretionary payment and compensation. [The landlord has] a Policy which assesses any claims where a loss or financial hardship has been experienced”.
The Complaints Policy says “persistent, vexatious or abusive complaints may apply where, during previous or current contact with [the landlord], the complainant has met one or more of the following criteria…”. Examples include:
1. They make an excessive number of contacts, placing unreasonable demands upon staff.
2. They harass or are personally abusive or aggressive towards staff.
It goes on to say where this is an issue, the landlord can restrict contact. It will notify the person/people in writing of its reasons for restricting contact and the action to be taken.
The landlord’s Discretionary Compensation Policy says “customers can make a claim for discretionary compensation by completing a Discretionary Compensation Form”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s decision to allocate a SPOC

The Ombudsman appreciates that the residents did not consider themselves to be aggressive or intimidating, contrary to allegations made by members of staff. It is not possible for this Service to definitively determine what was said verbally, how it was said, or how it was received. It is also not for the Ombudsman to decide whether the residents’ actions were inappropriate, only to consider whether the landlord acted reasonably in appointing a SPOC.
While the residents may not have intended to cause offence, it is evident that the landlord (and particular members of staff) had concerns about their behaviour. It was therefore entitled to take action under its Complaint Policy (detailed above), if it felt one or both of the residents was being aggressive towards staff. The policy allows the landlord to restrict contact in these circumstances and the landlord’s letter clearly set out its reasons for doing so.
In circumstances where there are issues between parties, appointing a SPOC can often be beneficial. It can help ensure information is filtered through one source and minimises the risk of information getting lost because there are too many people involved in a case. It can also help build stronger relationships between parties by having a specific and consistent point of contact.
Overall, while it is clear the residents took issue with the decision to appoint a SPOC, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord was entitled to do so, and ensured it explained to the residents its reasoning for doing so. As a result, there was no maladministration in relation to this part of the complaint.

Investigation in to staff conduct.

The residents have said that the person acting as their SPOC made inappropriate and offensive comments during their contact. This issue was not raised until the stage 2 complaint and the landlord responded as part of its stage 2 response (despite it not being raised at stage 1), which was appropriate in the circumstances. It demonstrated that it took the matter seriously by discussing the allegations with the SPOC, which was a reasonable course of action.
Given that the SPOC denied making the comments, and there was no other evidence to support the residents’ submissions, the landlord appropriately explained that it was unable to take further action. It is noted the residents were dissatisfied with this response, but the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate their concerns, take a balanced view, and explain its findings to the residents. As a result, there was no maladministration in relation to this part of the complaint.

Reports of issues with poor caretaking.

Fire door

At some point overnight between 11 and 12 April 2021, the glass in a fire door in the building was broken. The exact time of the report is not known, as it was apparently the police that reported the damage on 12 April 2021. However, the door was repaired (albeit temporarily) the day after the incident, so it is evident it was correctly treated as an emergency repair and dealt with in around 24 hours.
The residents complained about the condition of the door and the caretaking staff leaving before the door was made safe. They also raised concerns about the safety of the building because the door was boarded up with wood that was not fire-proof, and also asked questions about the insurance and how long it took to replace the glass.
The landlord addressed these points in its response to the complaint, and it took on board the comment about the wood, but felt the building safety was not generally compromised. The www.gov.uk factsheet entitled ‘Fire doors – Regulation 10’, says the minimum requirement is for someone to undertake an inspection of a fire door to identify any obvious damage or issues. That was the case here. The CM attended on 12 April 2021 as did the caretaker who reportedly cleaned up the area. It was not for the caretaker to repair the fire door. A job had been reported and the landlord acted on that within a reasonable amount of time. It carried out a temporary repair and installed the new glass 2 weeks later once it was received. Therefore, it complied with its obligations to deal with it as a priority repair, within 30 days.
The Ombudsman appreciates the concerns the residents had over safety, but the replacement glass had to be measured and ordered so boarding up the door in the meantime was not unreasonable. The landlord took on board feedback over the type of wood used, and there were no fire safety issues over the period when the door was boarded up. The glass was replaced to ensure the fire door complied with regulations, so overall it acted reasonably.

Cigarette ends and general cleanliness

The residents complained about there being leaves, cigarette ends and other things such as bits of carpet in the communal stairway/area. The Ombudsman has seen photographs of litter but it is not possible to conclude how long it had been there, or that the caretaker was not carrying out their duties as a result.
The landlord noted the residents’ concerns and reasonably pointed out that, in terms of cigarette ends and litter, they would continue to be an issue if people left them there. However, it did report the residents’ concerns to the caretaking team, which said the building had been swept every week, and nobody else had reported issues with cleanliness. It also issued a letter to all residents and investigated further by doing an unannounced visit, which also found there to be no caretaking issues. This indicates the landlord took the residents’ concerns seriously. It acknowledged there were debris and bulky items left behind by the contractors which fell outside the caretaker’s remit and it took steps to have that removed, which was appropriate. It also checked windows were being cleaned internally.
Based on the information provided, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate the residents’ concerns. It is evident the landlord and residents disagree on the expected levels of cleanliness and how often the caretaker should attend. This has been complicated because of the ‘Caretaker Services’ document not being accurate, and the residents’ expectations not being properly managed.
The lease makes it clear that the landlord is responsible for caretaking services, but the specific level of service appears to only be detailed in a leaflet/poster produced by the landlord entitled ‘Caretaking Services’. The landlord has produced 2 versions of this poster, both of which were apparently drafted in 2018. It has said it needed to make the poster specific to the residents’ building and the residents were presented with the correct version in a meeting in 2018. However, they later asked for another copy and the incorrect version was sent to them. The landlord apologised for the error and then sent the correct version.
In terms of the 2 documents, the main differences are that the incorrect version says the caretaker provided services from Monday to Friday between 8am and 4pm, plus four hours a day on weekends and bank holidays. In addition, every day it would sweep or vacuum all ground floor areas, including foyers and lifts. Other cleaning was done weekly. The version the landlord has said was correct said caretaker services were provided between 8am and 12pm Monday to Friday. Although some tasks were done daily, in general the cleaning was done weekly, including sweeping or mopping all communal areas and stairways where necessary.
The Ombudsman has not seen that the residents were provided with the correct version of this document in 2018 as the landlord says. The evidence actually shows that during the course of the residents’ complaint being dealt with, it was established the caretaker spent 4.5 hours a week at the residents’ building. This is not something that was clear from the ‘Caretaker Services’ document itself.
In addition, in an email dated 22 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the ‘Caretaking Services’ document needed updating because it contained an error. The landlord also mentioned in its 18 August 2021 response that it was going to be looked in to by its marketing team. Therefore, this shows the document still contained an error in 2021.
While the landlord went on to correct this document, there was clearly an error with it for some time. The residents should have been able to rely upon what this document said, as it seems to be the key document setting out what work was done by the caretaker, and when. They raised a number of concerns about the condition of the building and argued the caretaker was not present enough. In particular, they had concerns about litter and cigarette ends not being cleaned up.
According to the incorrect version of the ‘Caretaking Services’ poster, the landlord should have been sweeping or vacuuming all ground floor areas every day. Therefore, it is quite possible the residents relied upon this statement in terms of the level of service they could expect. The landlord’s responses show that while the caretaker did check on the building and found there to be no caretaking issues, it was actually being swept weekly rather than daily. While this may have been the correct approach, it shows the residents’ expectations had not been properly managed.
The Ombudsman notes that the residents want their service charges reducing because they are not happy with the level of service they are receiving. It is important to explain from the outset that the Ombudsman cannot investigate complaints about the level of service charges or how the landlord calculates service charges. If the residents feel the service charge they are paying is too high because of the level of service they receive, they can make an application to the First Tier Tribunal. Alternatively, they can seek their own independent legal advice.
This Service can, though, consider how the landlord communicated its services to the resident. With that in mind, there was clearly a deficiency in the information provided by the landlord. It was not always particularly clear, the differing versions circulating contributed to the confusion, and the information provided in the ‘correct’ version of the leaflet does not appear to reflect the position on the ground. Altogether, this likely led the residents to expect the building to be cleaned more frequently, and to a higher standard, than it actually was. This has caused distress and frustration to the residents which could have been avoided.
The evidence indicates that there have been long standing issues, between 2018 and 2021, with regard to the accuracy of the information provided about the Caretaking Service. In fact, the Ombudsman has still not seen that an accurate and up to date account of the Caretaking Service has been provided to the residents, which properly reflects the amount of time the caretaker is expected to spend at the building each week and the services to be undertaken. Therefore, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of this part of the complaint.
In order to put things right, the Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to provide such a document to the residents (and other residents) which gives a true account of the services they can expect to receive and when. Further, in order to recognise the moderate frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failings, it should pay the residents jointly, compensation of £200. This adequately reflects the impact the poor service had, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as there was no long term or significant effect.

Complaint handling

The resident’s first complaint was sent to the landlord on 26 July 2021. Its Complaints Policy states upon receipt, it would send an acknowledgement setting out the complaint and who would be dealing with it. There is no evidence the landlord did that, which meant the residents did not know who was dealing with it.
The complaint response was then issued by their SPOC. Bearing in mind part of the complaint related to things the residents claimed she had said, it would have been prudent to have made them aware that she would be dealing with it. Had they known that in advance, the residents’ expectations would have been more effectively managed.
The landlord’s response was issued 17 working days after receipt and there is no indication there was an agreement with the residents for an extension of time beyond the 10 working days specified in its Complaints Policy. While the response was comprehensive, it did not address all the points raised, particularly the residents’ concern over comments they claimed the SPOC had made that they found offensive.
A further complaint was made on 25 January 2022 and it was right, due to the time that had passed and some issues being new, for it to be dealt with as a new stage 1 complaint. It was acknowledged immediately but on the tenth working day, when a response should have been issued, the landlord wrote to the residents and made them aware it needed until 22 February 2022 to respond. While the Complaints Policy allows for an extension of up to 10 working days to respond, if agreed, the residents say they did not receive notice of the request until 16 February 2022. Therefore, there was a period of time, albeit relatively short, when the residents had no idea when a response would be provided, which is unacceptable.
The deadline to respond was then moved again to 8 March 2022 but, again, the residents advise there were delays in them being notified of this. While it is not possible to know for sure when letters were sent, the Complaints Policy makes no reference to the landlord being able to extend the response deadline more than once. It does say when an extension is required in order to respond, a deadline should be agreed, and there is no indication the revised deadline was actually agreed with the residents.
It is noted the resident was not happy at receiving an unannounced telephone call on 7 February 2022 to discuss the complaint, but there is no reason to criticise the landlord for calling in order to resolve the complaint. The landlord addressed the residents’ concern over a meeting that was also meant to take place, which was reasonable, but it did not address the delays in the complaint handling at stage 1 which was unacceptable.
The landlord complied with its obligations at stage 2 and, despite new issues being raised by the residents, the landlord agreed to address them at stage 2, rather than logging a new complaint. This was a sensible approach and its response acknowledged that, as the complaint made in July 2021 referred to the SPOC, they should not have investigated it. By way of remedy it said it would ensure those mentioned in complaints would not investigate them in future. It reiterated the apology for any confusion over a meeting on 8 February 2022 and would ensure letters were checked before going out.
This was a proportionate and reasonable response to those points as it shows the landlord took a positive approach to learning from its mistakes. However, it failed to acknowledge its failures in addressing the complaint at stage 1 and in relation to the July 2021 complaint. In particular, that the residents became increasingly frustrated with the way the complaints were handled.
The Complaints Policy states the landlord can consider a discretionary payment of compensation. Its Discretionary Compensation Policy says the same, but a Discretionary Compensation Form has to be completed by the claimant. While a claim for compensation could be made that way, the landlord ought to have considered as part of its complaint handling, whether it should have offered compensation to recognise the impact of its failings on the residents.
This Services’ published remedies guidance explains that compensation may be payable where there has been distress and inconvenience and time and trouble, such as delays. In this case there were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and not all issues were considered. Therefore, the residents had to re-raise and escalate a complaint before getting a full response.
The poor complaints handling has not had a permanent or significant effect on the residents but it has evidently caused them some inconvenience. In accordance with the remedies guidance, as there were several issues with the landlord’s complaint handling, the landlord is ordered to pay the residents £400 jointly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Decision to appoint a SPOC.
2. Investigation in to staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Reports of issues with poor caretaking.
2. The complaint including the request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord was entitled to appoint a SPOC to liaise with the residents, in accordance with its Complaints Policy.
A reasonable investigation was carried out in to the residents’ complaint about staff conduct.
The landlord’s Caretaking Services document contained errors and this may have resulted in the residents’ expectations not being properly managed.
There were delays in responding to complaints and issuing correspondence to the residents. Extensions were also required, but there is no evidence a new date was agreed with the residents as per the landlord’s Complaints Policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience and poor communication relating to caretaking services.
  2. £400 for the delays and frustration caused by its complaints handling.
3. Carry out a review of its complaint handling and Compensation policy and put a procedure in place to ensure, all future complaints are actively monitored until fully resolved, and that paying compensation is not overlooked.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its ‘Caretaker Services’ documentation to ensure it accurately reflects the services it provides and the frequency of those services. It should ensure a copy is provided to the residents and this Service.