Amplius Living (202232404)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232404

Longhurst Group Limited

6 November 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 response to issues the resident raised concerning:
1. Repairs to his kitchen and bathroom.
2. Cleaning and maintenance of communal areas in and around his building.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. It requires him to pay a service charge for the costs incurred in maintaining the building where his 1-bedroom flat is located.
In June 2022, the resident’s wife reported a crack above the kitchen window. The landlord’s operative was unable to inspect it fully because they could not reach the window from outside. Around the same time, the landlord was aware of a fault with the lights in communal areas. An engineer asked it to raise a works order for scaffolding but this did not happen. In August 2022, there was a leak in the resident’s bathroom and hallway. Records show the leak was resolved within a day.
On 7 February 2023 the resident complained by telephone. The notes of this call say he was unhappy because:
1. He had been waiting 8 months for it to repair the kitchen window.
2. He believed he was not getting services he paid for in his service charge. This included that the communal door and lighting were not working.
3. There had been no cleaning of the communal areas since November 2022. He said there had been no window cleaning for 3 years.
4. Grass cuttings had been left recently and made the grounds untidy.

According to the landlord’s acknowledgement letter from mid-February summarising the complaint, the resident also complained about repairs to a leak in his bathroom, but it is unclear when this was raised.

The stage 1 response of 14 March 2023 was both a response to the resident’s complaint and his acknowledgement to escalate to stage 2. This was because the resident had declined the landlord’s request for an extension to its response deadline. In the response the landlord:
1. Acknowledged a failure by the contractor not advising it of follow-on works for the kitchen window in August 2022.
2. Apologised for failing to respond to a contractor’s request for scaffolding to repair the lights. It did not though accept a failing in repairs to the communal door.
3. Agreed the communal cleaning had not been done because of a problem with the contractor. It was unable to address the point about the window cleaning because of a lack of information.
4. Disagreed that it was responsible for grass cuttings strewn in the grounds because it did not provide that service at that time of year.

To put things right, the landlord advised it would complete outstanding repairs and would arrange a deep clean of the communal area.

The resident did not provide a reply to the stage 1 response, as he had already asked for his complaint to be escalated. .
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 25 May 2023, it said:
1. There was no reason to change its no failure decision on the bathroom, communal door, and grass cutting aspects.
2. It accepted an additional failure in not cleaning the communal windows.
3. The communal light had been completed in mid-March 2023 but recognised the resident had since reported the problem again.

To resolve matters, it committed to more regular meetings with its contractor and audits, and to complete outstanding repairs. The resident was invited to rebook a recent appointment for the kitchen window that was unsuccessful. The landlord offered £150 compensation, comprised of £50 for the delay in the kitchen window repair, £50 for the communal repairs/cleaning, and £50 for its delays in the complaints process. However, it advised it was still working on arranging a deep clean of the communal areas.

After the complaints process ended, the resident reported further intermittent problems with the communal door and lighting. Records show these were attended to. The resident advised that the landlord carried out cleaning of the communal areas. However, the landlord has not been able to provide evidence of when this recommenced.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service because he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He advised the circumstances of his complaint have caused he and his wife to feel unsafe. The resident is seeking compensation above the amount the landlord offered.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

According to the resident, the landlord did not carry out window cleaning services for over 3 years. The resident’s account is not disputed. However, there are time limits on what the Ombudsman may investigate. It was also the case that, at the time of the resident’s complaint in February 2023, the landlord’s complaints policy said it would not consider issues that had not been brought within 6 months of the resident being aware of them. This was also consistent with this Service’s approach at that time. Our decisions are based on evidence, and, with the passage of time, records may not be available. Recollections of events are likely to have faded and may not be entirely reliable. This investigation will then centre on the landlord’s actions from mid-2022.
The resident advised that since the complaint process ended there had been more recent issues with the communal door not locking and the standard of the communal maintenance. It is understandable that the resident has highlighted these concerns, as they are linked to his original complaint. However, the landlord has not been given the opportunity to investigate the new occurrences reported to this Service. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint and whether the evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately. The resident may wish to complain to the landlord, if he remains unhappy, he may then refer it to this Service.

Repairs to the kitchen and bathroom

A landlord is legally obligated to repair and maintain a resident’s property. The law says this should be in a “reasonable” timescale. The landlord’s repairs policy, which sets out how it intends to meet its legal requirements, says it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and routine ones within 28 calendar days. The policy stated that where a repair operative or external contractor cannot complete a repair, it should give the resident a new appointment. They were also required to ensure the repairs system was updated with relevant information “to enable accurate updates for performance and repairs monitoring.” This applied to works dealt with externally.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight report highlighted the importance of landlord’s maintaining oversight of repairs outsourced to contractors to ensure it meets their legal obligations.
The available records show the resident’s wife reported a crack above the kitchen window on 21 June 2022, through which rain was sometimes entering. While the repair logs for this issue were not provided, the contact records around this time show that an operative inspected the damage. This appears to have happened prior to 1 August 2022, which is when the landlord contacted the resident’s wife again to discuss the problem. The call notes state she advised that the operative was unable to complete an external inspection of the window. The resident’s wife was informed that a window contractor had been appointed to inspect further. According to the stage 1 response, this inspection took place on 9 August 2022. The Ombudsman sees no reason to doubt this took place, based on the contact notes and the fact the resident has not challenged this.
A few days after the discussion about the window repair, the resident reported a leak from his bathroom on 4 August 2022. Records show there were 2 attendances over the preceding 24 hours to check external pipework and retighten the bath waste.
When he made a complaint in early February 2023, the resident said he was unhappy that the window repair his wife reported 8 months prior was still outstanding. The resident also said the landlord had failed to repair the problem causing a leak in his bathroom, and that he had to attend to this himself.
It was not disputed by the landlord that it failed to complete the window repair. In both its stage 1 and 2 responses it apologised that its window contractor had not referred the matter back to it. It was appropriate that the landlord took accountability for its contractor not following its repairs policy. The failing also indicates a lack of oversight of its contractors on the part of the landlord.
In terms of the bathroom repair in mid-August 2022, the landlord did not accept a failing in its handling. It advised in both responses that records showed that the leak was attended to within its emergency timescale. The repair log does not confirm what time the landlord’s operative and drain contractor attended. Therefore, it is not possible for this Service to say if the landlord did meet its repair timescales. However, the notes at the time say that the leak was contained and repairs completed within 24 hours. This is a reasonable timeframe for a leak. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied that the landlord’s response was factual.
Where the landlord found it had done something wrong, its complaints policy aimed to put things right. The intention was to remedy matters “both for the individual customer, but also [to make] wider service improvements to prevent a similar matter arising again.” This approach is consistent with the one the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) encourages. Appropriate remedies can include apologising, providing explanations, taking a specific action (such as a repair), and paying compensation.
In addition to the apology, the landlord said it had arranged for a surveyor to inspect the crack above the window. The landlord advised the appointment, due to go ahead on 16 May 2023, had not been successful because the resident was not home. He was therefore invited to make an appointment with the landlord. It has not been possible to verify if the landlord’s account is correct from the available records, but this Service has not seen any challenge from the resident. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer to reinspect the damage as a solution.
What this Service is critical of, however, is the time it took to arrange the reinspection (around 3 months) after the resident brought the issue to the forefront in his complaint. This was not a “reasonable” timeframe by the landlord’s own standards. We have seen that the landlord apologised for the fact there were delays and multiple attendances required in its final response. It said its contractors were working to reduce the time people were waiting and that the landlord was “overseeing the progress of this.” The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has appropriately recognised that it took too long and has sought to learn from the resident’s poor experience. These actions are in line with the complaints policy and the Code.
The landlord’s approach to deciding on how much compensation to pay is consistent with the Ombudsman’s ‘Guidance on financial remedies’. These are based on the seriousness of the failing and level of impact to the resident. Payments start from £50 for cases where there was evidence of service failure causing some impact but not a long lasting one. They increase to £600 and above for serious failings leading to a major, long-term impact.
In its final response, the landlord offered £50 compensation for the delay in the window repair and £50 for the complaint handling failure. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the amount for the delay in the complaint is broadly in line with what the landlord’s policy says it will pay for low impact issues. It was also appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation for the delayed window repair. However, the amount awarded for the delay was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. This was exacerbated by the delay in reraising a repair. Therefore, an order will be made for further compensation in line with this Service’s remedies guidance that will replace the amount originally offered.
Both stages of the complaint responses were delayed. As the landlord’s complaint policy said it aimed to follow the timescales set in the Code, it was required to respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and within 20 working days at stage 2. At stage 1, it took around 14 working days longer. While the landlord asked for an extension on 13 March 2023, it did so well after the response was due. There was no evidence, however, that the landlord asked for an extension at stage 2. This response was almost 30 working days overdue. It was appropriate therefore that the landlord apologised for the protracted complaints process.

Communal areas

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is obliged to provide a number of services to the resident’s building. These include:
1. Communal repairs and cleaning.
2. Door entry service.
3. Grounds maintenance.

In turn, the resident is required to pay a service charge for these at a weekly rate.

According to the landlord’s estate management policy, it aimed to “enable customers to have quiet enjoyment of their homes in a safe and secure environment”. It committed to taking a “proactive [and effective] approach” to managing its properties and common areas, in line with the principles of the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Consumer neighbourhood and community standard’.
The landlord’s policy said it would “inspect its schemes and localities on a regular basis…informed by business intelligence and customer insight”. It would undertake repairs and services in communal areas in line with agreed service level agreements with its contractors.
Repair records provided show that in mid-July 2022 the landlord was aware of a fault with the communal lighting affecting 2 floors. An operative attended within 2 days and reported all but 1 light was working. However, they were unable to complete the repair because of difficulties in access. Follow on works were requested for scaffolding in early August 2022, but there was no further action to address this until after the resident made a complaint in February 2023. This was also the case with the communal door repair, which records show was raised in response to the complaint.
The resident complained that he was not receiving cleaning services in communal areas of his building covered by his service charge. He was also unhappy about the quality of the maintenance services, in particular relating to the communal door and lighting.
The Ombudsman’s May 2023 Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) found that “failings to create and record information accurately” led or contributed to a number of issues. This includes “not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
In response to the Ombudsman’s request for evidence, the landlord was not able to provide any records showing if and when its contractors cleaned communal areas. This is clearly a record keeping failing. It also means the landlord cannot demonstrate it provided managed services in the resident’s building “proactively”, in line with its estate management policy.
While the landlord was unable to provide records, did not dispute it failed to provide cleaning services. The landlord advised that this failing was due to the fact that its contractor had not been able to meet the requirements to have 2 cleaners to attend due to staffing problems. This Service has seen correspondence supporting that this was the explanation given by the contractor. While the Ombudsman understands that lack of staff can disrupt services, the contractor was not fulfilling its agreement to the landlord. This meant the landlord was not then meeting its contractual agreement to the resident. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken action to try to put things right. Whether this be finding an alternative contractor or offering a proportionate reduction or refund in the service charge that was being paid. That the landlord did not explore such action was a failing and a missed opportunity.
The landlord also acknowledged a failing in its handling of the communal lights and for not acting on the request for scaffolding. It was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for its failure. This though was a further occasion where the landlord’s repairs process and system had fallen short of the required standards. It would have been better if the landlord had explained the root cause of this failing as this would have demonstrated its willingness to learn.
As the landlord committed to undertaking regular inspections under the estate management policy, it should not have taken the resident making a complaint for this to come to light. This indicates a lack of oversight, which can likely be linked to the landlord’s poor knowledge and information systems and practices at the time. As the Spotlight on KIM highlighted, record keeping and management is essential to the landlord fulfilling its repair and contractual obligations.
The landlord said in its responses that it had not seen evidence of a problem with the communal door being reported in the previous 6 months. No records predating the resident’s complaint for the door issue were provided to this Service. It is unclear if this is because there were no issues reported or that they were not shared. However, the landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would only consider issues arising within 6 months of a complaint being made. Its response was therefore consistent with this approach, and with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme at the time. It was not then unreasonable for the landlord to focus on more recent reports.
While it did not accept a failure in its handling of repairs for the communal door, it did raise a repair on the strength of the resident’s complaint. The landlord explained in its final response that the door had been inspected in February and May 2023, and it was found to be working. It is apparent that the landlord took the resident’s reports seriously, as it should have done. The repair logs support the landlord’s account that no faults were identified. It is the Ombudsman’s view then that the landlord responded appropriately to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
In both responses, the landlord maintained that it did not cut grass in February, when the resident reported that piles of cuttings had been left. The landlord did not provide any logs or records showing when the grass cutting took place in the grounds of the resident’s building. It has not been possible to say if the landlord’s account is factual. However, in the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree that the Estate Manager would inspect the landscaping service at his next visit. This was in line with the landlord’s approach to learning from customer feedback.
In resolution to the failings the landlord acknowledged, it apologised to the resident and offered £50 for his time and trouble in reporting the issues. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise the impact on the resident. The award for the resident’s time and trouble is consistent with what its compensation policy said it would pay for cases where there has been “some impact”. However, it failed to recognise financial impact on the resident in paying for services that were not provided. Therefore, it has not appropriately remedied the complaint.
The landlord also completed the repair to the communal light, although it is recognised this took more than one visit. The landlord also advised it would arrange a deep clean of the communal areas, following which it would resume the cleaning schedule every 2 weeks. It was not though able to provide evidence of when the deep clean took place and when the cleaning resumed. Based on the resident’s account, there was some cleaning but the extent and regularity of this is unknown.
In the circumstances, it has not been possible to establish how long the communal cleaning was not provided because of the lack of available records. It is not then able to establish the direct financial impact of the landlord’s failings. Therefore, the landlord is ordered to carry out work to establish this, as well as a review to determine how many other resident’s have been affected.
The landlord also appropriately made an offer of compensation. However, given the additional failings that have been identified through our investigation, we do not consider the offer to be proportionate. We have therefore ordered it to pay £100, which replaces the landlord’s original offer of £50.
In this investigation, failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of its repairs and record-keeping which are similar to those identified in a previous case. In this case, we made a wider order under 54.f. of the Scheme for the landlord to review its repairs and record-keeping practices. It has since complied with this. We have not then made any further orders for the landlord to improve in these areas. However, we expect the landlord to take forward the lessons and improvements it shared with this Service following the wider order and will monitor the progress of this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s response to issues the resident raised to do with:
1. Repairs to his kitchen and bathroom.
2. Cleaning and maintenance of communal areas in and around his building.

Orders

Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
2. Review its and its contractor records to determine how long the communal cleaning services were suspended for and calculate the amount the resident is owed from his service charges. If the landlord is unable to evidence this, it should decide on a reasonable amount and explain how it arrived at this.
3. Pay the resident compensation of £200, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience from delays with the window repair.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience arising from the failings in the communal repairs and cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure (at a minimum) it:
1. Identifies other residents in the building who have been affected by similar issues, but not necessarily engaged with its complaint procedure.
2. Looks at its current knowledge and information management systems and practices around:
  1. recording and monitoring of the services it and its contractors provide to residents paying service charges.
  2. the frequency and outcomes of estate inspections.
3. Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
  1. the findings and learning from the review.
  2. improvements it has already made or intends to make to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
  3. the number of other residents who have experienced similar issues.
  4. the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to the residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include consideration to compensating residents for the services it is unable to evidence were provided.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 6 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

If the compensation of £50 has not been paid to the resident for its complaint handling failings, the landlord should reoffer it as this recognised the genuine service failure and was the reason this Service took no further action on this point.
The landlord should consider engaging with residents about the services delivered to its blocks and estates. It should further consider sharing details of the dates of its inspections and their outcomes with residents, and where possible encourage joint inspections.