Peabody Trust (202202698)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202698

Peabody Trust

29 February 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 regarding the landlord’s management of the resident’s building, with regards to:
1. Repairs.
2. the provision of services charged for within the service charges.
3. the level of service charges.
The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint has also been assessed.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident’s complaint about the level of the service charges is outside of the jurisdiction for this Service to consider. This is because the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the increase of service charges or rent in line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the complainant would be advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should he wish to do so.

Background and summary of events

Background

The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the second floor. It is shared ownership, bought by the residents in April 2018 as a new build.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 22 (S22) applies where a tenant has obtained a summary as is referred to in section 21:1 (S21), summary of relevant costs, whether in pursuance of that section or otherwise:
1. the tenant may within six months of obtaining the summary require the landlord in writing to afford him reasonable facilities:
  1. for inspecting the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary, and
  2. for taking copies or extracts from them.
2. the landlord shall make such facilities available to the tenant or secretary for a period of two months beginning not later than one month after the request is made.
According to the lease the landlord is responsible for:
1. maintenance, repair, redecorate, renew, and improve the premises and all parts of the building including balconies and patios which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder
2. common parts
The lease states that the service charge:
1. shall be calculated before the beginning of the accounts year and shall be calculated as a sum comprising the expenditure estimated by the authorised person as likely to be incurred in the account year by the landlord, together with:
2. the relevant expenditure to be included in the service provision shall comprise all expenditure, reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of services for the building.
Under 42(a) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, this Service can consider complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure if there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the service, actions or lack of actions.” Complaints have to be raised by the resident within 6 months of a problem arising unless there are exceptional circumstances and states that it will:
1. acknowledge the complaint within 2 days
2. aim to resolve stage 1 and stage 2 in 10 working days, but if not able, it will provide an explanation and confirm timescales for a decision
3. the landlord will not consider escalations to the next stage where it has been demonstrated that the request is being made in order to achieve a higher level of compensation.
4. identify the reason/reasons for the complaint in detail
5. identify the series of events that led to the complaint (including dates and details of previous correspondence where available)
6. understand customer’s expectations regarding what a resolution would be
7. investigate the complaint promptly and fairly, resolving problems at the earliest opportunity
8. highlight what steps need to be taken to resolve the complaint
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (CHC) states that:
1. a landlord’s complaints policy should clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered but to be fair and reasonable. An example given is if the issues giving rise to the complaint occurred over 6 months ago.
2. the landlord should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing relevant policies, law, and good practice
The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
1. emergency repairs – should be attended to within 4 hours and made safe in 24 hours
2. routine repairs will be offered the next available appointment
The Ombudsman’s Scheme (The Scheme), paragraph 10 states that the landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion relevant to the complaint.
Paragraph 35 of the Scheme confirms that a complaint is duly made when it has exhausted, or the Ombudsman has decided it has exhausted, the members internal processes for considering complaints.

Summary of events

The resident had been in regular contact with the landlord in previous years including 2021, regarding numerous issues such as:
1. overcharging of service charges
2. failure to carry out repairs, for the broken gate, fob system, hot water, and lights
3. the cleaning service being provided
4. requesting details of service charge expenditure, and associated invoices.
On 26 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord asking why he was being ignored. He wanted to know why no permanent solution had been found to fix the car park security gate issue which had been ongoing for 3 years. The landlord emailed back denying that the issue had been ongoing for such a period and said that it would ask the specialist team to call him to discuss further. No notes were provided to confirm that a call back was made, or clarification provided.
The resident emailed back the same day stating that the other residents unanimously disagreed due to the frequency, and that the same reoccurring issue was being repeated. He also claimed that their car insurance would not be valid, and that if the job was done to a sufficient standard, then the continual remedial works would not be required – which was the leaseholders contention.
On 22 October 2021, a repair was raised for the car park security gates for an intermittent fault with the safety edge controller, as the door was almost in the closed position. On 7 November 2021, the landlord fully tested the photo beams on the shutter which would stop the shutter from closing should there be an obstacle in the way. The door was left operating.
On 26 October 2021 following a residents’ meeting, the landlord sent an internal email as the resident had advised that he had been refused access to the accounts for service charges as it was “too onerous” a task. It replied internally that the relevant team had not received any requests, and that the resident had direct contact details to the appropriate team, as it had been communicating last year regarding the 2019/2020 actuals. The landlord advised that he had not been in contact since and had not responded to the last few emails sent.
On 2 November 2021, the resident requested copies of the accounts for 2018/2019, 2019/2020, 2020/2021 from the landlord. It responded the same day stating that it was unable to provide the supporting documents of 2018/2019 or 2019/2020 as the request had to be made within 6 months of receiving the written summary of costs. It would however make him aware as soon as the 2020/2021 costs were available. A further email was sent on 8 November 2021 reiterating this.
On 16 November 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s request stating:
1. it was compiling the information for 2020/2021, and that it had one calendar month to provide the documents and so would make contact by 24 November 2021
2. due to the pandemic, the information would be passed over via email, as it did with the reconciled accounts for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020
3. that it had sent the finalised accounts for the 2 years 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 on 30 November 2020.
On 17 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and reiterated that it had sent the accounts on 30 November 2020, and that he was advised at the time to look through the transactions and identify which invoices he wished to view. Arrangements would then be made to supply copies. The resident confirmed that his neighbour would do this, who requested 5 invoices, all of which had been sent. This it said, confirmed that he was not being ignored.
The resident responded on 17 November 2021, asking for invoices from 2018 until the present day. His queries were around service charges being recoverable on costs that were reasonably incurred and carried out to a reasonable standard. He provided a list of those he felt were not reasonable. The landlord responded to on the same day, confirming that:
1. service charges were recoverable on costs reasonably incurred and carried out, and that if it had failed at any time, to confirm details and it would investigate
2. the security gate, fob system, and hot water had all been addressed but if there were any further issues to advise accordingly
3. it was looking at the charges for the lights as they were left on all the time, and would keep him updated
4. the electrical charges were the actual costs from the energy supplier and based on consumption
5. the overall service charges had decreased due to a high surplus and that this was common on a new site, as they were based on estimates rather than historical expenditure.
On 23 November 2021, it was reported that the car park gate was locked and not responding to the fob entry code or manual override. The contractor’s target date was 13 December 2021.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord emailed the actuals for 2020/2021 to the resident, which included an overview of each cost heading, for ease of reference. It confirmed it was retrieving the information for 2019/2020.
An internal email sent on 8 December 2021, confirmed that the landlord had spoken to the resident explaining that they had done everything he had asked, to which he agreed. It advised that it would send over the 2020/2021 information. The resident asked for 2019/2020 documents relating to repairs /maintenance, it agreed to send them over but would need time to arrange as it was historic information. The resident raised issues with the CCTV and the repairs to the gate and was told by the landlord that these issues had been investigated and resolved.
On 20 December 2021, the landlord’s repair schedule shows that the car park security gates were driven into and damaged. The contractor’s target date was 25 January 2021. According to the landlord’s email on 11 January 2022 to the resident, the gates had been repaired.
On 5 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord with a number of queries. It replied on 11 January 2022, advising that:
1. it apologised for not responding to the query raised a couple of months ago about the guest parking, but it had been looking to see if the parking contractor could patrol outside of normal working hours
2. the security gate that had been driven into was now fixed, but it did not capture who was responsible, as it was on a sensor and may have been delayed. However, it agreed to have a contractor look at the camera and identify any problems that may be causing an issue obtaining footage consistently.
On 2 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to chase outstanding information. He advised that:
1. he had tried calling Out of Hours (OOH) but had been left on hold for an hour
2. the residents had not had a response regarding the parking issue
3. the welcome pack confirmed that residents would have access to CCTV, but when the bikes were stolen, the footage could not be seen, nor could it when the garage doors were damaged
The landlord’s repair records indicate that a repair for the communal garden lights was raised on 7 February 2022. Contractors attended the next day but were unable to gain access. The issue was repaired on 11 February 2022.
On 9 February 2022, the landlord sent an email advising residents that:
1. it was currently experiencing some challenges in the way it was delivering its service which were affecting repairs, complaints, and contact centre services
2. it was experiencing delays with sourcing materials which enabled it to repair its properties and communal areas
3. the delays had increased calls to the contact centre creating delays in wait times
4. increases in queries and complaints were creating delays in the time it took the landlord to respond
5. it would increase call centre capacity
6. it planned to enhance contractor capacity
7. it would work with residents to resolve complaints and queries within a more satisfactory time scale
On 9 February 2022, the complaint was initiated by the resident responding to the landlord’s email. He thanked the landlord for the update but said that it did not excuse its 4 years of “farcical mismanagement.” He said that:
1. the residents had been overcharged in accordance with the IRPM’s criteria
2. the landlord fell short ethically and professional in multiple areas
3. it had charged management fees but had not managed the block
4. it had applied service charges for services they had not received
5. multiple issues had been raised to which it had not responded to
The landlord responded on 18 February 2022 by email, confirming that it had raised a stage 1 complaint. It apologised that the complaint was not acknowledged in a timely manner.
On the same day, the resident responded, stating that he had a list of complaints going back 4 years, which had never been raised as ‘a complaint’ and therefore felt the landlord had trivialised the issues. He said that “sufficient compensation was required not just for the shambolic mismanagement of the building by the flagrant disregarding of its own complaints procedure.”
On 14 March 2022, a residents meeting was held. Items on the agenda included:
1. communal issues – CCTV, fob, gate failure, OOH process, communal works
2. service charge increase.
On 23 March 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said the complaint was about:
1. charges for management fees and services charges for services not provided
2. multiple issues raised that were not responded to.
In the response it confirmed it had spoken to colleagues who had been involved in the case to find all the information about the outstanding issues. The landlord said that many of the issues had been addressed during the residents’ meeting on Monday 14 March 2022. It advised that it had continuous communication with residents and that the complaints reported had been responded to. The findings included:
1. communal repairs
2. CCTV
3. service failures and charges
The landlord apologised for the delayed response to the complaint and offered £150 compensation. The complaint was partially upheld as it recognised service failures with regard to repair works but did not uphold the claims that previous complaints were not responded to. It committed to meetings every 3 months as part of its redress, along with open communication, and transparency on future actions and it committed to finalising the repair works to the block.
The resident responded on 31 March 2022 and asked why the complaints process was being assessed as a stage 1 complaint for the first time. He said that over the last 4 years they had heard nothing, chased complaints and facilities failings that the landlord was “still looking into.” One complaint was over 18 months old which he said was not acceptable. He also said that although compensation had been offered it did not excuse the other issues and that £150 was an insulting offer.
On 14 April 2022, following a conversation with the resident the landlord sent an email. It apologised for the resident having to chase a response. It said that it thought the resident meeting items regarding the charges to the block and the increases were included in the reply, and that this was part of the response. It noted that he had requested an escalation and that within that process timescales would be provided. It had also contacted the relevant team leaders to obtain a breakdown of all charges from the previous year and had asked to ensure that all calculations were correct.
On 15 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord, stating that the concern was not about the breaking down of the service charges, but more the overcharging for services not received, lack of professionalism and frequent emotional distress he had been subjected to, and the “audacity” to increase the rent and service charge “after a year of failing to deliver a service of any value.” He requested a date when he would receive a response regarding setting the overcharging and the compensation issues as it had been a month since he had asked for this at the residents’ meeting. The resident advised that the offer of £150 was insulting and vastly disproportionate to the scale of failures he had been subjected to.
The landlord sent an internal email on 27 April 2022, requesting confirmation that the stage 2 escalation had been processed.
On 28 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating again that it had been a month since the residents’ meeting. He thought this to be sufficient time to have had an outcome of the overcharging investigation and what the residents were due back, as they were paying for services not received.
On 28 April 2022, the landlord sent an internal email stating that the resident had not put in a request to escalate to stage 2, but it would write to him advising how to escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy. An email was sent to the resident, apologising for the delayed response, and advised that if he remained unhappy with the response at stage 1, he could escalate to stage 2. It advised that it could refuse to carry out a review in certain circumstances and provided the categories.
On 29 April 2022, the resident confirmed that he was happy for his complaint be escalated to stage 2, as he felt that “a hush payment of £150 was insulting, as this did not equate to the emotional stress that the landlord had put him through over the past 4 years.” He re-iterated what he thought the landlord’s failures were:
1. not passing on records
2. 4 years of failing to permanently fix the faulty fob car park gate entry system
3. the leaking roof
4. rude and experienced staff (including OOH), that did not know what they were talking about
5. cleaning fees charged, but more damage was done than good
6. CCTV charges when cameras constantly fail to record incidents
7. old energy lights left on and not replaced with LED lights
8. extortionate management fees
9. breakdown of internal communications
10. substandard construction
11. contractors attending site without residents’ knowledge and distracting home workers
On 7 May 2022, a fault with the balcony lights was reported as they were constantly switched on. This was addressed on 17 June 2022 according to the landlord’s records and the repair completed.
On 9 May 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident with regards to his request to escalate the complaint. The escalation was declined on the grounds that it was based on an appeal for higher compensation. As a gesture of good will, it increased the compensation offer to £250 in recognition of the impact this had on the resident.
On 13 July 2022, the resident emailed the Ombudsman to advise that although jobs were completed, they had to ask 2 or 3 times and this created stress, that the landlord would not share repair records, staff were always leaving and that complaints did not go anywhere, and that evidence could be provided for the following landlord’s failings:
1. many unanswered calls and emails
2. written complaints and calls regarding contractors attending site without residents being informed
3. its “we will look into it attitude”
4. zoom meetings where the landlord had failed to take ownership
5. leaseholders who had to resolve maintenance issues themselves due to repetitive failures
6. verbal accounts of maladministration
The Ombudsman spoke to the resident in February 2024 regarding his complaint as there were many issues raised but little evidence to substantiate his claim or his reports regarding the leaking roof, rude staff, cleaning fees charged etc.. It was clarified on what grounds this complaint would proceed on with the evidence received.

Assessment and findings

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress where he has not been able to resolve his concerns. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the concerns have had on his health. Unlike a court the Ombudsman cannot establish what caused the health issue or determine liability or award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
It is relevant to note that despite requesting information on the relevant repairs for this block to assist this Service with its enquiries, only limited information was provided by the landlord. No file notes were provided to confirm the discussion that the landlord had on 28 February 2022 with the resident, which was also detailed in the stage 1 response.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding communal repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states it would deal with routine repairs at the next available appointment. This was not appropriate. It does not provide a measurement of time for residents to use as a guideline and is therefore unable to provide them with any reasonable expectation, nor provide room for what can be considered as a reasonable response time to measure against.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that a repair for the communal garden lights was raised on 7 February 2022. Contractors attended the next day but were unable to gain access. The issue was repaired on 11 February 2022 which was 4 working days later. This was appropriate as the repair was fixed within a reasonable timescale according to this service.
On 7 May 2022, a fault with the balcony lights was reported as they were constantly switched on. This was addressed on 17 June 2022 according to the landlord’s records and the repair completed. This repair took 41 working days to complete. Whilst it is recognised that it was a 2 person visit, the length of time to fix was not appropriate. The resident had complained about the electrical usage as the lights were on all the time, this was an unnecessary cost which would have been offset in the service charges.
On 8 December 2021, the resident raised his concerns about the quality of the CCTV. On 11 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for a contractor to look at the camera to establish the issues in obtaining footage consistently.
On 14 March 2022 at the residents’ meeting, the actions for the landlord to take away were that it would follow up regarding the issues with the CCTV system and timings, and how it was recording.
The stage 1 complaint dated 23 March 2022 stated it would follow up with the asset compliance team to establish how footage was recorded on the CCTV and to check on issues regarding system and timings.
Part of the escalation request on 29 April 2022 was regarding the CCTV charges, as the CCTV had recorded little information following 2 incidents of stolen bikes and a car hitting the car park gate, but neither were captured by the CCTV. No evidence was provided to confirm that the landlord completed the investigations it mentioned previously or updated the resident. No evidence has been provided to confirm that this issue was resolved and therefore it is assumed that it was still outstanding. This was not appropriate, as from the dates above the issues were left unresolved for at least 59 working days.
This caused the resident distress and inconvenience and was part of the cause of the resident having to raise a complaint. This was because the landlord was unable to use the recording for insurance purposes, when the car drove into the gate, which in turn led to repair costs being charged back to residents.
On the 22 October 2021, it was reported that the car park gates had an intermittent fault, 11 working days later, on 7 November 2021 this was looked into, and the gates were left working. The gates were then driven into on 20 December 2021. In an email on 11 January 2022, the landlord reported that they were fixed, which was within 14 working days. The repairs with regards to the car park gates were therefore dealt with appropriately.
Whilst the landlord completed some of the repairs in a reasonable timescale, it took 41 working days to fix the balcony lights, and at least 59 working days to review how the CCTV cameras were working as no resolution was evidenced. The landlord had no timescales indicator for completing routine repairs. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding communal repairs amount to maladministration.

The landlord’s management of the property including the provision of services paid for under the service charges.

Whilst the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent, or the increase of service charges or rent, it can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with and responses to the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (S21 and S22), and the lease agreement the landlord has a duty to provide residents with access to the accounts, receipts and other documentation supporting the calculation of service charges.
On 26 October 2021, the landlord sent an internal email as according to the resident, he had been told that he could not have access to the accounts for service charges, as it was too onerous a task. The relevant team responded the same day, advising that it had not received a request for this information.
The resident asked the landlord again on 2 November 2021. The landlord advised that it was not able to send 2018/2019 nor 2020/2021 as the request had to be made within 6 months of receiving the written summary of costs. This was appropriate advice and in accordance with section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord did advise that it would let the resident know when the 2020/2021 accounts were ready.
The landlord advised the resident on 17 November 2021, that it had already sent him the accounts for 2018/2019 and 2019/2020 on 30 November 2020 following his email chasing a response on 11 November 2020. On 30 November 2021, the landlord emailed the actuals for 2020/2021, which included an overview of each cost heading, for ease of reference. This was appropriate action from the landlord as it provided the information on the service charges within a month of each request, and complied with the Landlord and Tenant act 1985, and the lease agreement.
According to the landlord’s notes on 8 December 2021, the resident confirmed that it had done everything that he had asked it to do. It agreed to send over additional information for 2019/2020 but would need time to retrieve it as it was historical. This was a reasonable response from the landlord as it had no legal obligation to provide the historical information.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord apologised to the resident for not responding to his query a few months previous concerning the guest parking. On 2 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that he had still not heard back about the guest parking. This suggests that the query regarding guest parking was outstanding for over 3 months, and the resident was not kept informed.
No evidence was provided to confirm that the guest parking query was ever resolved. This was not appropriate and indicates poor customer service as it caused the resident distress due to lack of response, and a loss of confidence in its service and inconvenience for having to chase for an answer.
On the 11 January 2022, the landlord confirmed that although it had previously stated that it would know who was to settle the costs for the cladding by the end of the year, there had been no response from the government to date. It would share the finding as soon as it could. This was appropriate advice as the decision was beyond its control and was being held up by central government. The landlord should update all the residents systematically.
The landlord failed to respond to the query regarding the guest parking, which the resident then had to chase. However, it did provide details relating to service charges within the timelines as set out in the lease agreement and as guided by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It provided additional information when it had no legal duty to do so. On the information provided the landlord’s management of the property in relation to the provision of services paid for under the service charges, amounts to service failure.

The associated complaint

The resident’s complaint was made on 9 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 February 2022, which was not appropriate as according to its complaints procedure it should have been acknowledged within 2 working days and was therefore 7 working days late.
The landlord’s complaints policy is clear on how a complaint will be dealt with and although it acknowledged the complaint, it did not identify the reason for the complaint in detail or clarify the resident’s expectations. This was not appropriate as the landlord failed to follow its own policy and procedure.
The response to the stage 1 complaint was issued on 23 March 2022, which was 30 working days later. This was not appropriate as the landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond within 10 working days and was therefore 20 working days late. No evidence was provided to indicate that the landlord requested additional time. It therefore failed to comply with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s CHC. It also caused the resident frustration and inconvenience, as his complaint was about poor communication, and he had to chase the landlord for a response.
The stage 1 decision appeared to be based on issues raised in the phone call of 28 February 2022 between the resident and the landlord (no file notes were provided to this Service detailing the conversation) and the residents’ meeting on Monday 14 March 2022. Whilst this service received copies of the agenda and action plan of the meeting (denoted in the stage 1 decision), no details of the conversations or minutes of the meeting were provided. This was not appropriate. In isolation the stage 1 decision does not fully correlate with the complaint made by the resident.
As such there is no evidence that the landlord addressed all points raised in the complaint. The landlord also failed to set out what investigations it made to arrive at its decision, which made the complaint confusing and unclear. The stage 1 response simply provided an action plan. It is recognised that the resident’s initial complaint was lacking in specific examples, but the landlord should have established on what grounds the resident’s allegations were made in that it had:
1. overcharged
2. been unethical and unprofessional
3. charged management fees but did not manage the block
4. applied service charges for services not received
5. charged management fees for services not provided
The complaint was partially upheld, as there had been service failure identified in regard to repair works. The stage 1 decision provided no information on any specifics of the service failure. This was not appropriate as it does not comply with the Ombudsman’s CHC. Having spoken to the resident, it was established that this was due to the delays in removing scaffolding.
The stage 1 decision offered compensation of £150 for the delay in sending the response. This was not appropriate as it did not offer sufficient redress for the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
On 23 March 2022, the resident responded to the stage 1 decision, stating that for over 4 years he had heard nothing, chased complaints and failings that the landlord was still looking into, with one being 18 months old. He said that the compensation did not excuse the other issues. On 14 April 2022, the landlord confirmed the resident’s escalation request and wrote an internal email on 27 April 2022 to ensure that it had been escalated. However, the landlord responded to the email the next day advising that the resident had not submitted an escalation request. This was not appropriate. This should have been actioned as an escalation request as the resident was still evidently dissatisfied.
As the landlord said it had not received an escalation request, it wrote to the resident on 27 April 2022, advising the resident how he could do this. This was not appropriate as the resident had already relayed his dissatisfaction on 23 March 2023. The resident then replied on 29 April 2022 and said that he was happy to escalate the complaint and provided a further list of issues that he was dissatisfied with.
The decision not to escalate the complaint on 9 May 2022, was made 30 working days after the resident relayed his dissatisfaction to the stage 1 decision on 23 March 2022. This was not appropriate and was 20 working days later than set out in its complaints policy and 10 days later than the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the CHC.
The decision not to escalate the complaint was made on the basis that the points raised in his email as reasons to appeal, had already been addressed “through constant meetings held by managers” and because the resident was only asking for additional compensation, the decision was not appropriate. Although the resident identified that he was not happy with the level of compensation, in his request dated 23 March 2022, this was not the only dissatisfaction raised.
The resident highlighted the emotional stress he had suffered. He advised of a report that had been outstanding for 18 months, and that he was still waiting for a decision regarding his query raised at the residents’ meeting a month before (regarding settling the overcharging and the compensation issues). In his response on 29 April 2022, he included additional issues with which he was dissatisfied. The escalation request was evidently not just about the level of compensation. Although the landlord states that these issues were discussed with managers in various other meetings, this service has not evidenced this information. The resident should have been issued with a full stage 2 response, setting out his dissatisfaction with the landlord clarifying what action it had taken to resolve all issues raised.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that if a complaint is denied escalation, it does not allow sufficient opportunity for residents to respond to the landlord’s position. This would be unfair particularly when it includes information that may be new to the resident. This is not in keeping with our dispute resolution principles (Be Fair, Put Things Right, Learn from Outcomes. It also denies a review at a more senior level (e.g. Director or Board), which brings a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint. Senior reviews can provide an opportunity for landlords to spot patterns, nip issues in the bud and to learn from outcomes. Complaints can provide independent, practical, and unique insights providing an early warning system for significant problems and acting as a catalyst for organisational learning.
The landlord refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2 as it defined the request as asking for additional compensation. However, as a gesture of good will and in light of the impact the case had on the resident the landlord increased the offer of compensation to £250. This was not appropriate and confusing as it contradicts its own reason for denying the escalation of the complaint.
Whilst it is recognised that the landlord acknowledged some failures by offering £250 compensation, this was not suitable redress for the level of distress and inconvenience it caused the resident.
Overall, the landlord did not comply with its own complaints policy nor the Ombudsman’s CHC. It was late in acknowledging the complaint and in issuing a stage 1 decision. It did not recognise a request to escalate the complaint in the first instance, nor proceed to stage 2 when it did. It failed to recognise the failures raised in the request and allow the complaint to be escalated. It refused the escalation as it wrongly stated that the resident was only requesting higher compensation and then contradicted itself by offering higher compensation. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint amounts to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its management of the resident’s building with regards to repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its management of the resident’s building with regard to the provision of services paid for under the service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about level of service charge is outside of our jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord with regards to the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took 41 working days to repair the balcony lights, and at least 59 working days to review how the CCTV cameras were working, both of which had financial implications to the resident.
The landlord failed to respond to the query regarding the guest parking, which the resident then had to chase. However, it did provided details relating to services charges within the timelines as set out in the lease agreement and as guided by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and procedure and the Ombudsman’s CHC. It was late in acknowledging the complaint, issuing a stage 1 response, and unfairly refused to escalate the complaint to stage 2.

Orders and recommendations

A senior officer is to issue the resident with a written apology within 4 weeks. It should recognise the landlord’s delays to complete the repairs, and failure to comply with its complaints policy. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with a copy of the letter.
Within 4 weeks from the date of the report, the landlord must pay the resident a total compensation of £600. This includes the £250 previously offered if already paid). The payment must be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any service charge arrears if accrued. The amount ordered is made up of:
1. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of the resident’s building regarding repairs.
2. £50 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s management of the resident’s building with regards to services paid for under service charges
3. £400 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the associated complaint.
If not already done so, the landlord is to ensure that the appropriate feedback is provided to the resident with respect to its findings of the CCTV mechanical workings.
The landlord should complete a review of the timescales set out in its repairs responsibility booklet and consider providing more clarity to customers as to the expected target completion date for routine repairs.
The landlord should complete a review of its complaints policy so that it mirrors the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code to provide a more realistic opportunity to meet the response times as stipulated and reduce its limitations on escalating a complaint to stage 2.
Training/refresher training should be provided to relevant employees so that they are aware of the importance of submitting all the relevant documents requested by this service to ensure that a fair and impartial decision can be made taking into account all of the appropriate information. It also needs to re-iterate the response times to each process of the complaints procedure.
It is understood that the landlord is currently reviewing its policies and procedures. If any of the reviews, orders or recommendations have been completed in conjunction with this ongoing work, the landlord can submit this as evidence of compliance for this investigation.