London & Quadrant Housing Trust (201910580)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910580

London & Quadrant H T

19 May 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

Complaint A

The complaint is about

The condition of the property at the start of the resident’s tenancy;
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repair; and
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint B

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with a service charge cost illustrated on her tenancy agreement; and
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman has considered point (1a) of the complaint definition to be outside of this Service’s jurisdiction.
While the Ombudsman has assessed the resident’s comments regarding the condition of her property at the start of her tenancy, the Ombudsman is unable to investigate this as, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the state of the property should have been complained about and pursued at this time. In line with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, which would normally be within six months of the matter occurring. As the resident has been at the property for several years now, the Ombudsman would be unable to investigate whether the state of the property at the beginning of her tenancy was indeed satisfactory. The Ombudsman has therefore only investigated:

Complaint A

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repair; and
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint B

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with a service charge cost illustrated on her tenancy agreement; and
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property, for several years.
The property is a two-bedroom, second floor flat.
The landlord’s records suggest that the resident’s property is occupied by the resident and her child.
At the time of the complaint, the resident had just finished her cancer treatment.

Legal and policy framework

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obligated to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises, except where the tenant or persons living with the tenant or the tenant’s visitors have caused disrepair by failing to use the property in a reasonable manner.
Once the landlord has been informed of repairs that are needed, the tenant must allow a reasonable time for the work to be done, and liability only arises once the reasonable time has elapsed from the date the notice was served. The length of time will depend on the scale of the work and the effect the disrepair is having. The landlord will not be in breach of its repairing obligation until this time has elapsed.

Tenancy Agreement

The Ombudsman has reviewed the renewed tenancy agreement, issued and signed by the resident on 15 December 2019. Under section H of the Particulars within the resident’s [new] tenancy agreement, entitled “Total weekly charges payable”, it details a net rent charge and a service charge which amounts to the total weekly gross rent charge. While the Particulars should also indicate, as suggested in paragraph 2.c.2, whether the service charge is fixed or variable, the resident’s agreement does not make this clear.

Repair documents

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its repairs responsibilities policy and the “Your home and your maintenance responsibilities as a tenant” document. These outline the landlord’s approach to dealing with repairs and highlight the landlord’s responsibility to make sure all fixtures and fittings for the supply of water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation are in working order. Of particular relevance, the Ombudsman has noted:

For emergency repairs, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant, the landlord will attend within 24 hours. For all non-emergency repairs, the landlord will arrange a mutually convenient appointment.

Where vulnerable residents are concerned, the documents suggest that the landlord will:

Consider whether the defect is putting the resident at risk because of their physical or mental health; and

Treat the repair with escalated priority where a delay in completing the repair could cause an increased health and safety risk.

Complaints policy

The landlord has also provided this service with a copy of its complaints policy. This explains the landlord’s complaints process and indicates:

At stage one, the landlord will contact the customer within one working day. The complaint will be investigated thoroughly, and the customer will be kept up to date with the progress of the matter complained about.

If the complaint in any way relates to staff conduct, the investigation should be handled by the line manager.
At stage two, the complaint will be considered by a senior manager.

Compensation policy and guidance

Finally, the Ombudsman has reviewed both the landlord’s compensation policy and guidance. Amongst other things, these suggest:

The right to repair obligations make it incumbent on the landlord to offer compensation to assured tenants where it fails to complete qualifying repairs within the prescribed timeframe. For a total or partial loss of space or water heating (between 20 April and 1 November), the expected timeframe for repair is within three working days.

Where there is a failure to respond (to a query within 10 working days or to a formal complaint within the published timescales) a payment of £10 will be made.

Scope

The Ombudsman can see that the resident suggested that being without heating / hot water and the “ordeal” of having to chase the landlord had impacted her health. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this service to reasonably determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or lack of) and the deterioration of the resident’s health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the tenant wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

Summary of events

Complaint A

The landlord’s records suggest that on 30 March 2019 its engineer checked the resident’s boiler and identified issues with the pressure sensor, valve and the filing loop handle. The Ombudsman can see that due to cancelled, missed and no access appointments, the works were not completed until 30 April 2019 when the boiler was left in working order.
On 21 October 2019 the resident contacted the landlord. She explained that following a gas safety check (on 19 October 2019), the engineer had found her boiler to be unsafe and in need of replacement. The boiler was subsequently turned off leaving her with no heating or hot water. She highlighted that two days had now passed and she had heard on the landlord’s plans for repair.
The resident made a further call to the landlord on the same day expressing that she was expecting a new boiler to be fitted that day.
The landlord’s records suggest that on 22 October 2019 the resident was advised of the standard process for the boiler installation, however it was noted that the resident had just finished her cancer treatment and had already gone several days without heating and hot water. It considered that having no heating/hot water could make the resident ill and therefore the matter needed to be prioritised.
The Ombudsman can see that the resident chased an update on 23 October 2019 however received no response. The landlord did, however, follow up with its contractors to establish whether an appointment could be prioritised.
On or around 24 October 2019, the resident submitted a complaint form. She explained:

On 19 October 2019 its contractor found the boiler to be dangerous while undertaking a gas safety inspection. She questioned why this was not picked up earlier in May 2019.

She had sent an email and left a voicemail for the Gas Engineer and the landlord’s contractor on 21 October 2019, however no response was provided.
She had been without heating and hot water for five days and while she had called on a daily basis for an update, the landlord had provided no estimate for completion.
She requested that the landlord refund her rent for this period and put her in a property with heating/hot water. She had resorted to buying a heater with her own money.

On the same day, the landlord’s contractor contacted the resident and advised that the works would commence on 25 October 2019 but would be a two-day job. Notes show that the resident became frustrated with this and ended the call.
The resident was emailed on the same day to confirm that the Gas Engineer would be in touch to discuss the repair.
The Ombudsman can see that in a later conversation with the resident, the Gas Engineer explained that with the demands on the business, works could not be done until 28 October 2019 with the installation being completed on 29 October 2019. The resident insisted on the works being completed on 25 October 2019 however it was advised that this could not happen.
The resident contacted the landlord’s Customer Service again later that day to establish whether works could commence on 25 October 2019. It was confirmed for the resident that while this had been on the case notes, following the Gas Engineer’s call, works were scheduled for 28 October 2019. The landlord explained that due to the time, the installation team had already left for the day and so this could not be rearranged.
The resident subsequently followed this up with an email to the Gas Engineer. She stated that she had been informed that the appointment had been moved by him and questioned why he had done this. She reminded the Gas Engineer that she had spent the week trying to arrange the completion of the works and considered the Gas Engineers actions to be spiteful.
On 25 October 2019 the Gas Engineer responded. He explained that while this was not ideal, he aimed to undertake the works in a timely manner were possible and 28 October 2019 was the earliest that the boiler could be installed. He assured the resident that at no time had the works been delayed.
It was reiterated, in an additional response from another member of the landlord’s staff, that the Gas Engineer had not instructed the contractors not to attend earlier in the day. It was explained that if the resident was told this, this was incorrect.
Later, on the same day and in a further complaint, the resident stated:

She had now been advised that the works were booked to start earlier in the day however this was cancelled by the Gas Engineer and moved to start on 28 October 2019. She stated that this was for no particular reason other than to delay her situation.

She had attempted to contact the Gas Engineer and had not received a response prior to 24 October 2019, and very little empathy was shown towards her situation.
By 28 October 2019 she would have been without heating and hot water for 10 days.
According to the Gas Engineer, the timescale allowed 20 days for the completion of works and the resident was “lucky” this was being done sooner. As an emergency repair, however, this should have been resolved within 24 hours and was therefore a breach of her tenancy agreement.
Upon consulting an independent heating engineer, she had been informed that it would not be life threatening to keep her boiler on. She therefore requested that the landlord return to provide a second opinion and to turn the boiler back on.

She requested the transcript from her telephone call on 24 October 2019 in which she was informed that the appointment had been moved by the Gas Engineer.

The resident added to her complaint submission on 28 October 2019. She expressed that she had been told that the works would take two days to complete, as scaffolding would be required, however the repair was completed earlier that day in four and a half hours and without the need for scaffolding. The resident stated that she was therefore unhappy that the works had not commenced on 25 October 2019 as originally suggested, as this would have offered hot water and heating over the weekend.
On 29 October 2019 the resident emailed the landlord reiterating that the works were completed in less than five hours, no re-piping or scaffolding was required. She added that she was still waiting on a copy of the transcript for her call with Customer Service and the report following her boiler repair in May 2019. She asserted that she wanted a response to her complaint, and the costs of her heaters reimbursed.
The Gas Engineer advised that the resident’s complaint would now be handled by the Customer Relations Team.
On 1 November 2019 the Gas Engineer provided a stage one response. It was explained:

The contractor had previously attended the resident’s property on 30 April 2019. Parts were replaced on the boiler and the boiler was left working.

The contractor attended the resident’s property on 19 October 2019 to carry out a service. During this, a fault was identified which it was unable to repair and so this was referred back to the landlord for a replacement boiler, after making this safe.
An order was made to replace the boiler on 22 October 2019 and approved on 23 October 2019. On 24 October 2019 it was communicated to the resident that the next available slot for installation was 28 October 2019. This was carried out on time with the electrics completed on 29 October 2019.

The Gas Engineer acknowledged that there had been limited communication between 21-24 October 2019 and offered an apology for this. He maintained, however, that works were completed at the earliest opportunity.

On 8 and 11 November 2019 the resident chased the landlord for an update. She explained that she had been expecting contact regarding her complaint on 7 November 2019, however had heard nothing. She highlighted that her complaint was still outstanding, and she did not believe that the landlord had complied with its complaints policy.
On the same day, the resident confirmed receipt of the telephone recording. She asserted that as she had previously suggested, she had been informed that the job was initially booked for 25 October 2019 but subsequently moved to 28 October 2019 by the Gas Engineer. She questioned why an ex-cancer patient would be denied an earlier appointment and requested that the Gas Engineer be dealt with by the landlord.
On 12 November 2019 the resident again called to chase a response to her complaint. It was confirmed for the resident that her complaint would be escalated and that she would be called back.
On 18 November 2019 the resident confirmed receipt of the landlord’s stage one response. She questioned why this had been drafted by the Gas Engineer after being informed that the matter was being passed to the Customer Relations Team.
On the same day, the Gas Engineer attempted to explain that there had been an error. He confirmed, nonetheless, that the letter was sent on 1 November 2019. The Gas Engineer refused to offer any further comments on the matter.
The resident was informed on 19 November 2019 that her complaint would be reviewed by the Customer Relations Team at stage two.
On 6 December 2019 the landlord (the Gas Manager) provided its final response. The landlord noted that the resident was unhappy with the timescale in which the boiler was replaced, that a temporary heater was not provided, and that the installation was delayed by the Gas Engineer. It therefore reiterated its earlier points adding:

Its contractor had initially indicated that works could commence on Friday 25 October 2019. It then confirmed the works for 28 October 2019, however. The landlord explained that this date was amended by its contractor as a result of their availability of resources. This was not changed by the Gas Engineer.

The landlord therefore restated that there had been no service failure with regards to the time taken to complete the works. It acknowledged, however, that a temporary heater should have been provided to the resident and this had not been done. It therefore concluded that it would reimburse the resident for the heaters she had arranged, and offer £50 compensation as a good will gesture. It apologised for this failure.

On the same day, the resident responded. She asserted that the advisor on the telephone recording had clearly informed her that the Gas Engineer had moved her appointment to a later date. She therefore requested that this be investigated. She added that her comments relating to the lack of scaffolding had also been ignored.
On 11 December 2019 the landlord offered the resident a further response. It stated:

While the resident did not accept the answer, it was the contractor who opted to delay the works. This matter would not be addressed again.

In relation to the scaffold, its position was that the boiler was installed within a reasonable time frame.

The complaint would be closed, and the compensation/reimbursement had been raised for payment.

On 12 December 2019 following further correspondence from the resident, in which she expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the complaint and the scaffolding issue, the landlord agreed that the communication had been below an acceptable standard. It suggested that this had been reflected in the £50 compensation offered, however. It noted that from the date of registration, it had failed to adhere to its protocol.

Complaint B

On 10 January 2020 the resident shared a picture of her tenancy agreement with the landlord and requested further information on the service charges she appeared to be paying. She voiced that the stairwells were rarely cleaned and had not been since before Christmas, yet the service charge was paid every week. There were also mushrooms growing in the communal garden and the grass was never cut.
On 13 January 2020 the Property Manager responded to the resident. It agreed that over the Christmas period, there had been a service failure with regard to cleaning and grounds maintenance. The cleaning had been missed as the cleaner was absent during the Christmas period and the grass not cut. It was advised that this had been raised with the relevant supervisors and would be monitored to ensure that the service standard did not slip again.
On 22 January 2020 the resident raised a complaint. Amongst other comments, she explained that her rent amount included a service charge of £23.40 which she had been paying without receiving the service and which the Property Manager had now acknowledged. She therefore required a refund of three weeks service charge to cover the Christmas period.
On 29 January 2020 the resident explained that she had been approached by a neighbour who was surprised at the amount she was paying in service charges. The resident therefore questioned with the landlord whether she was paying more service charge than her neighbours for the same services.
The Ombudsman can see that the residents query was responded to on 31 January 2020. The resident was advised to compare her service charge statement with her neighbours as the costs should not have been different. It was explained that if this was, this would be investigated by the service charge team.
On or around 1 February 2020 the landlord emailed the resident with a list of services that were included in the service charge.
On 2 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that it appeared the service charges differed from what she believed she had signed up for. She expressed that she would not be paying for several of the services listed and asserted that the landlord had been making up charges as it went along. She requested that the landlord contact her to discuss the list of services, particularly the management fees and the caretaking costs. The resident also queried why her charges appeared to be higher than other residents.
On 12 February 2020 the Property Manager responded to the resident and asserted that the resident had been charged for the appropriate services as set out for the estate. These were applicable to all resident’s irrespective of their tenure. It explained that a service charge refund would not be offered however as mentioned, the services would be closely monitored now that it had been flagged. The landlord again provided the resident with the list of services and advised that the resident had not been charged for caretaking as this service had been withdrawn.
On the same day, the resident asked the landlord for a cost breakdown for each of the services. The landlord replied on 21 February 2020 explaining that it no longer offered this as the gross rent was unaffected by the estimate cost of services charges.
On 26 February 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord asserting that she had noticed, now that other residents had raised complaints, the grass had been cut, the door entry system had been serviced and a cleaning service offered. She expressed that she had not received any of these services before. She therefore requested a refund for all monies previously paid.
On 28 February 2020 following emails from the resident, the property manager reiterated that the caretaking service had been withdrawn and apologised that this had been added to the recent service charge statement. The Service Charge Team had advised however, in relation to this charge, that the resident’s costs would stay the same. It explained that the amount paid was a gross rent amount and so a service charge was not paid. As a result, it would make no difference in the cost if a service / cost was removed. In relation to the other service costs such as fire equipment and management fees, these were equally charged to all residents.
The resident questioned, on the same day, why the landlord would not decrease the charge if a service was removed.
The landlord responded to this on 2 March 2020 explaining that the rent and service charge were combined. If the service charge was reduced, the net rent would increase to bring the gross rent to the correct figure. This would work in the reverse if the service charge was increased. It explained that the gross rent figure would stay the same regardless of whether the services increased or decreased, and would only go up in line with government guidelines.
In further correspondence the landlord explained that a service charge was not usually displayed on affordable rent tenancy agreements. Nonetheless, as it stated, this was combined to make the gross rent figure. The affordable rent figure was calculated by considering several factors however the service charge was not one of them.
Still on 2 March 2020 the resident expressed that she was dissatisfied with this. She requested to know why her tenancy agreement detailed a service charge and why a list of services was given, if she was not charged a service charge.
The landlord explained on the following day that it did provide services as per the list provided, however this was covered by the rent. This list allowed the resident to know what services she could expect and the ability to comment on any failings so that these could be resolved. It explained that services were added and removed overtime but did not affect the figure.
On 5 March 2020 the resident again questioned why her tenancy agreement showed that she was paying a service charge.
On 11 March 2020 the landlord’s legal team advised:
The total rent was calculated to be inclusive of all other charges to keep it affordable and lower than 80% of the market rent. The service charges were fixed and part of the total weekly charge.
Due to an administrative error in the Particulars of the agreement, it was not clearly shown that the service was fixed and not variable. This was instead completed as “N/A” on the resident’s tenancy agreement. The landlord explained that as the resident’s charges were fixed, section 2.c.5 applied. It explained that for all of its affordable rent tenancies, there was a single overall rent cost.
In response the resident expressed that she believed her tenancy agreement to be void and asserted that the landlord had played this down as an admin error. She stated that she wanted this matter investigated.
On 13 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained that it had reviewed the previous correspondence sent to the resident and this had all been factually correct. It had not suggested that the services did not exist, but that the gross rent covered the services that were provided to her. It claimed it had apologised (although the Ombudsman has not seen this apology) for the administrative error in displaying the service charge costs and explained that the service charge was included in the gross rent. The resident was advised to raise a formal complaint if she was not happy with the response.
After receiving contact from the resident, this Service encouraged the landlord to provide a stage two response. The landlord did this on 26 March 2020 . It explained that on review of the resident’s complaint, it was satisfied that all issues raised were answered and that nothing further could be added to the previous responses.

Assessment and findings

Complaint A

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repair

As per the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the responsibilities listed within the landlord’s repair documents, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and keeping in repair the installations for water and space heating within the resident’s property. Where the landlord becomes aware of the need for repair, it should take appropriate steps to put things right and within a reasonable timeframe. What’s more, where the landlord identifies a potential vulnerability which could be worsened by a delay in completing repairs, as per its policy, the landlord should treat the repair with escalated priority. The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord acted accordingly in this case and while it appears that the landlord took reasonable steps to repair the boiler, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered failed to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.
The landlord’s records show that following the gas safety inspection on 19 October 2019, the landlord ordered a replacement boiler for the resident’s property within two working days. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord had also taken note of the resident’s health risks and emphasised to its contractor the need to prioritise the resident repair. This was appropriate.
It would have been further appropriate for the landlord to share its plan of action with the resident during this time, however the Ombudsman notes that there was limited communication with her. Still, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord acknowledged this within its stage one response and offered an apology. This was sufficient.
It is argued that following a call on 24 October 2019 to the resident in which she was informed of the process and timeframe for completion, the repair was intentionally delayed. The Ombudsman recognises that this became the subject of dispute and central to the resident’s dissatisfaction. The Ombudsman has considered this and is able to confirm that an earlier appointment (25 October 2019) was proposed prior to the resident’s call with the Gas Engineer. The Ombudsman can also confirm that the resident was advised, following her conversation with the Gas Engineer on the same day, that the appointment had since been booked to commence on 28 October 2019. It therefore did appear that the works were being delayed, despite the requirement to prioritise the repair (and without consideration for the additional two days that the resident would be without heating).
The Ombudsman is content, however, that the landlord offered a reasonable explanation for the change in dates. It explained that due to the demands on the business, 28 October 2019 was the earliest option that the installation could be completed and reiterated several times in its responses that the repair had not been intentionally delayed. This was acceptable. While the Ombudsman notes the resident’s assertion that this was delayed out of spitefulness, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest this.
The resident has also raised her dissatisfaction that contrary to the landlord’s suggestion, two days were not required for the works (as there was no need for scaffolding or re-piping). In respect of this, the Ombudsman cannot see that the assumed length of time for works to be completed had any impact on when the works would commence. The Ombudsman understands that had the landlord began works on 25 October 2019, it could have been completed on the same day. As advised by the landlord, however, this was not an option.
As the resident was without heating (and hot water) for several days, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to supply her with temporary heating equipment. With knowledge of the resident’s health risk, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to make such arrangements at the earliest opportunity. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its failure to do so was subsequently contrary to good practice.
It was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged this failing within its final response, and confirmed that it would reimburse the resident for the heaters she had purchased. This was reasonable. The Ombudsman is concerned, however, with the level of compensation offered in recognition of this failure. The Ombudsman notes that in total, the landlord made an award of £50 to account for both its failure to offer a heater and its complaint handling. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, £25 failed to satisfactorily resolve this element of the complaint.
What’s more, compensation should have been paid to account for the landlord’s delay in completing the repairs. While the landlord’s repair policy is unclear on its approach to a loss of heating and hot water, the Ombudsman notes that under the landlord’s compensation policy, it is explained that total or partial loss of space and water heating should be completed within three working days. This also makes clear that where the landlord is unable to honour this, compensation should be offered. In light of this, the Ombudsman has concluded that a further offer of compensation should have been made to account for the four working days which exceeded the suggested timeframe. This would have been reasonable in resolving the complaint.
Finally, in relation to the resident’s earlier boiler repair, the records from the appointment in April 2019 show that the boiler was left in working order. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord met its repair obligations at that time. While the resident has indicated that this issue and the subsequent issue in October 2019 may have been linked, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest this. Rather, the Ombudsman notes that within the landlord’s stage two response, it confirmed for the resident, on the expertise of its contractors, that the issues were not linked.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Moreover, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord failed to adequately consider its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to recognise that following the resident’s complaint on 24 October 2019, no acknowledgement was sent to the resident, or assurance that her concerns would be addressed. This prompted further dissatisfaction on 25 October 2019 which, again, does not appear to have been acknowledged by the landlord.
What’s more, although the landlord’s stage one response indicates that it was sent on 1 November 2019, the resident has suggested that this was not received until 18 November 2019. While the landlord insisted, following contact from the resident on receiving the letter, that its records confirmed it had been sent on 1 November 2019, the Ombudsman has been provided with no such proof. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep (and provide) records for the actions it takes.
This aside, the Ombudsman can see that the resident alerted the landlord that she had not received a response to her complaint on 8, 11 and 12 November 2019. Still, the Ombudsman cannot see that a further copy was sent or, as several emails were exchanged, that the landlord attempted to share this via email.
The Ombudsman also notes that there was a lack of clarity with who would be dealing with the resident’s complaint. The resident was informed by the Gas Engineer that the complaint would be handled by the Customer Relations Team however this does not appear to have been the case. As per the landlord complaints policy where there has been a complaint which relates to staff conduct in any way, this should be handled by the line manager. It appears, however, that the complaint response was offered by the Gas Engineer himself. This was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s policy.
In light of the above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the compensation offered (£25) failed to adequately reflect the landlord’s poor complaint handling. It does not appear that the landlord fairly considered all circumstances of this case and subsequently, in the Ombudsman’s view, fell short of putting things right.

Complaint B

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with a service charge cost illustrated on her tenancy agreement.

The Ombudsman has considered the way in which the landlord addressed the resident’s service charge concerns and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s explanation was somewhat confusing, it was acceptable. The Ombudsman is satisfied that once the resident brought this matter to the landlord’s attention, it clarified (although through several responses) that the service charge was one element which made up the gross rent (along with the net rent) and confirmed that the gross rent would remain the same irrespective of changes in service.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord clarified for the resident that this was not usually illustrated on the tenancy agreement for affordable tenants. It therefore sought confirmation from its legal team, and advised the resident that due to an administrative error, this had mistakenly been included on the agreement. With this, it appropriately advised the resident, that her service charge was fixed and not variable (subsequently directing the resident to the relevant paragraphs in the tenancy agreement). This was appropriate.
The Ombudsman appreciates that on 28 February 2020 the landlord did suggest that the resident was not charged a service charge, and this created confusion as it directly contradicted what was illustrated on the new agreement. It was subsequently not unreasonable that the resident questioned the landlord’s response. The Ombudsman is satisfied, though, that the landlord provided the resident with clarity on this on 2 and 11 March 2020.
With this confusion, the resident questioned why a list of services was provided if each service did not make up her costs. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to explain that services were offered, and that the list highlighted each service which the resident could expect and which, if the landlord was failing to deliver, she could raise concerns about. This too was reasonable.
Contrary to the landlord’s suggestion, however, it does not appear that the landlord provided the resident with an apology for the administrative error, and in understanding of the worry this created. What’s more, it is unclear why, after identifying the administrative error and noting the resident’s assertion that this made her agreement “void”, the landlord did not issue the resident with a new agreement containing the correct information. This was unreasonable.
With the exception of the cleaning and grass cutting over the Christmas period, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest that residents were not receiving any services. Equally though, following the resident’s assertion (and subsequent request for a refund) on 28 February 2020, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord directly addressed this. This was unreasonable. At minimum, the landlord should have offered the resident some reassurance that it had been, and continued to, management the estate appropriately.
In respect of the resident’s request to be reimbursed, and her desire to understand why the charges would not decrease if a service was removed, the Ombudsman is content that the landlord offered a reasonable explanation. The landlord adequately explained that any addition or removal of services would not impact the gross rent paid (as the cost would remain the same) and therefore would not provide scope for reimbursement. It was reasonable still, that the landlord advised the resident that it would monitor the situation to ensure that the service standard did not slip again.
The Ombudsman has also considered that the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s list of services and made allegations that the landlord was “making it up as… [it went] along”. The Ombudsman has not commented on this, however, as in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would be more appropriate for the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) to consider whether these charges were payable, should the resident wish to pursue this.
Finally, the resident questioned why her service charges appeared to be higher in comparison to other residents. While the Ombudsman can see that the landlord responded to the resident and advised her to compare her statement with that of another residents (on 31 January 2020), the Ombudsman notes that the resident still pursued an answer on 2 February 2020. It therefore would have been reasonable for the landlord’s service charge team to have reviewed this and responded to the resident accordingly. It does not appear that this concern was explored.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord failed to employ its complaints process in line with its policy. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord maintained communication with the resident in order to discuss her service charge concerns, it does not appear that the landlord formally considered the resident’s complaint under its process or provided a stage one response. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord wrote to the resident on 12 February 2020 (over 20 days later) and addressed her request to be reimbursed. The landlord’s failure to formally recognise the resident’s complaint, however, meant that she was not provided with any complaint escalation details, where she remained unhappy. Subsequently, after demonstrating further dissatisfaction with the landlord’s responses, the resident was advised to register a (second) stage one complaint (on 13 March 2020), rather than being provided with confirmation that her complaint would be escalated or being issued a final response. This was unreasonable. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, had the landlord provided a single and succinct complaint response, its explanation(s) of the service charge and admin error would have been less ambiguous for the resident. Moreover, the resident would not have had to refer to the Ombudsman Service to encourage the landlord to offer a complaint response.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord could have also addressed this and sought to put things right within its stage two response on 26 March 2020. Its failure to adequately review its handling of the complaint meant that it missed this opportunity, however.

Determination (decision)

Complaint A

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:

A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s boiler repair
A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Complaint B

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with a service charge cost illustrated on her tenancy agreement.
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:

Complaint A

In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord recognised its failure to accommodate the resident and provide temporary heaters, the compensation offered in reflection of this failed to satisfactorily resolve the matter. The landlord offered £50 which it explained would account for both this and its handling of the resident’s complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s view, was unreasonable. The Ombudsman has found that the landlord also failed to act in accordance with its compensation policy. As noted, where the landlord failed to complete the resident’s repair in the prescribed timeframe, an offer of compensation should have been made. The Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord did this. This would have been appropriate in recognising the length of time that the resident was without heating.
The landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint was unacceptable. Contrary to its own complaints policy, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint within the proposed timeframe and has provided no evidence to verify that the resident’s stage one response was sent/received within good time, despite the resident contesting this. The Ombudsman notes that the resident chased an update on several occasions, however was not provided with a copy of the landlord’s complaint response. What’s more, while the complaints policy suggests that complaints about members of staff will be reviewed by a manager, (at stage one) this did not happen. In view of this, coupled with the landlord’s earlier communication issues, there was a clear service failure.

Complaint B

Although the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord provided the resident with a sufficient explanation, the landlord failed to put things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have provided the resident with an apology and offered the resident a new tenancy agreement, once it had identified the administrative error on the resident’s agreement. It does not appear that this was done, and this subsequently resulted in further dissatisfaction. Moreover, The Ombudsman is concerned that several of the resident’s queries went without response. This might have been resolved had the landlord offered an appropriate complaint response.
The landlord failed to consider and to respond to the resident under its complaints process, following the resident’s complaint submission. Subsequently, the landlord offered a delayed, informal response, failing to offer the benefits of its stage one process. This was inappropriate and in the Ombudsman’s view, was an opportunity missed for the landlord to address the residents outstanding questions. The Ombudsman is equally concerned that the landlord overlooked this at stage two, and only offered a brief response.

Orders and recommendations

Complaint A

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the boiler repair and its handling of the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident £150 in total. This has been calculated as:

£50 in recognition of its failure to offer a temporary heater

£50 in recognition of the time taken to complete the works and the subsequent impact on the resident.
£50 to account for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord should also still reimburse the resident for the cost of her heaters.

Recommendations

While the landlord recognised its failure here, it should ensure that in future cases, the appropriate accommodations are made for residents where there has been a loss of heat or hot water.
The landlord should also ensure that it acts in accordance with its complaints policy, particular where complaints about staff are concerned.

Complaint B

Orders

In recognition of the service failure, in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns with a service charge cost illustrated on her tenancy agreement, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to write to the resident and provide an apology for the discrepancy on her tenancy agreement. The landlord should also issue a new agreement, with the correct information as per the resident’s tenancy.
The landlord’s Service Charge Team should contact the resident within four weeks of receiving this determination to discuss any further concerns that the resident may have.
In respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord should award the resident £50 for its failure to act in accordance with its policy. This payment should be made within four weeks of receiving this determination.
The landlord should comply with the above orders for complaints A and B, within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.

Recommendations

The landlord may benefit from reviewing the Complaint Handling Code, available on the Housing Ombudsman Service website. This will remind the landlord of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling expectations.
Where errors are identified with a resident’s tenancy agreement in the future, the landlord should proactively seek to rectify this and to issue the resident a new copy with the correct information.