Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Midland Heart Limited (202212631)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212631

Midland Heart Limited

24 October 2023


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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the Retirement Living Officer job role.
    2. The increase to the resident’s service charges.
    3. The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder who occupies a flat within a block (the property).
  2. In August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and queried why the working hours of the Retirement Living Officer (RLO) had increased from 2 hours per week, to 7 hours per week. The resident raised his concerns regarding the lack of additional work undertaken by the RLO to reflect the increased hours, and the subsequent increase to his service charges.
  3. The landlord and resident exchanged several letters between September and November 2021, where the landlord advised that the RLO was responsible for property safety and completing health and safety checks, as well as work that was not completed whilst the RLO was on site at the property. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and did not agree that he had received a thorough explanation regarding the RLO’s job role to justify the increased hours and service charge. The resident requested that the landlord did not respond to his letter on 22 November 2021.
  4. On 18 July 2022, following a discussion between the landlord and the resident, the resident’s unresolved queries were raised as a formal complaint. The landlord provided an initial stage one response on 2 August 2022, where it addressed several complaints, however the resident advised that there were further matters he wished to raise therefore the landlord arranged to discuss these further with the resident.
  5. Subsequently, a further stage one response was issued on 2 September 2022. The resident remained dissatisfied with both responses and escalated his complaint. On 12 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response and advised that the expectation was for the RLO to attend the property for 1 hour per week, with a further 6 hours being worked remotely. The landlord acknowledged that this had not been explained to the resident, which it apologised for and offered £35 compensation. It also offered a total of £100 compensation for identified complaint handling failures, as it acknowledged that it should have informed the resident of its complaints process in 2021.
  6. The resident informed this Service that he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, as it has still not provided an explanation regarding the RLO’s job role and what duties they undertake in the 7 hours per week. The resident advised that he has not seen any improvements, to the contrary, he believes that communal safety issues are now worse. The resident wants the landlord to provide the explanation he asked for as a result of this Service’s investigation.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. 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, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. However, the Ombudsman will consider complaints in the context of a member landlord’s: management of service charge accounts, handling of enquiries relating to service charges and the standard of services received for these charges. Leaseholders may consider applying to the Tribunal for arbitration of the reasonableness or increase of service charges should they wish to dispute this. Further information can be found at https://www.justice.gov.uk/tribunals/residential-property#leasehold
  3. Therefore, this Service will not consider the resident’s concerns about the increase to his service charge. Accordingly, this report has focussed on the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the Retirement Living Officer job role, and the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Scope

  1. This Service is aware that the resident raised several complaints during the landlord’s complaints process, including a report that landlord staff had been racist towards the resident. However, the resident advised this Service that this element of his complaint had been resolved by the landlord. Subsequently, this Service will not be considering this aspect of the resident’s complaint and will be focussing on the complaints that remain unresolved for the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the Retirement Living Officer job role.

  1. The resident raised an initial query in August 2021 regarding the role of the RLO. The resident was concerned that the role was previously contracted to 2 hours per week, but the RLO was now contracted to work 7 hours per week, thus increasing his service charge contribution. He requested that the landlord advised why the contracted hours had increased, and what extra work the RLO was undertaking to justify the increase in hours. The resident also raised concerns that the RLO was not doing any additional work.
  2. Following the initial query, the landlord and resident exchanged several letters between September and November 2021. The letters raised various queries, but the resident’s query regarding the RLO job role remained unanswered. The responses sent by the landlord were arguably vague, which was evidently frustrating the resident as he felt the landlord was deliberately ignoring his request for further information. This Service expects a landlord to be open and transparent with its residents and it was unreasonable that the resident felt his requests were being consistently left unaddressed when they were clear and completely unambiguous.
  3. It is also important to note that the resident should not have needed to raise the question with the landlord in the first place. Should any changes be made to a resident’s service charges, specifically the need to employee staff for a greater length of time, residents should have a clear understanding of why the changes have been made, what the additional work will entail and how this will contribute to the maintenance of the communal property. This information should be readily available to residents, however there is no evidence that it was in this case, which resulted in the resident raising the query. This was a failure.
  4. In its stage two response, the landlord explained that the RLO role was worked for 1 hour per week at the property, and the remaining 6 hours were worked remotely. However, the landlord still provided no explanation regarding the RLO’s job role or how the remote hours would benefit residents. While this Service cannot whether or not the increased charge was warranted, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have shared details of additional service the resident would receive.
  5. The landlord offered the resident £35 compensation in recognition of its oversights. While the financial remedy is acknowledged, it did not resolve the resident’s complaint and his query regarding the RLO’s job role remain unanswered by the landlord. This Service also does not deem the compensation offer to be sufficient given the unnecessary time, trouble and inconvenience endured by the resident in pursuing an answer from the landlord and needing to bring his complaint to this Service. 
  6. In all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the resident has reasonably provided the resident with the information that he has requested. There is a clear lack of transparency in what the RLO’s new responsibilities consist of. 
  7. To remedy these failures, an additional award of £65 compensation has been made here, in addition to the £35 already offered by the landlord. This sum is within the Ombudsman’s remedy scale for cases involving service failure where the impact for the resident included time, trouble and inconvenience caused due to delays in getting matters resolved. It is also ordered that the landlord provides the resident with a detailed explanation of what the job role of the RLO entails, including tasks generally completed at the property and remotely.

The landlord’s associated complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy outlines that a complaint is defined as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation. This is also the complaint definition outlined within this Service’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC). The code also outlines that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such by the landlord.
  2. The CHC sets out that landlord’s must offer formal complaint responses under its complaints process. A stage one response must be issued within 10 working days of the complaint being logged and must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
  3. The code further sets out that landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage one in clear, plain language:
    1. the complaint stage
    2. the complaint definition
    3. the decision on the complaint
    4. the reasons for any decisions made
    5. the details of any remedy offered to put things right
    6. details of any outstanding actions
    7. details of how to escalate the matter to stage two if the resident is not satisfied with the answer
  4. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement. A landlord’s failure to adhere to the code and the complaint process procedures contained within does not allow for justified accountability and could damage relationships with its residents.
  5. The content of the resident’s letter in November 2021 was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. However, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy and the CHC as it did not provide the resident with a stage one response. This meant that the resident did not have the reassurance and benefit of response timescales, the opportunity to receive a formal remedy to put things right, and an awareness of how to escalate his complaint should he have wished to do so. This caused the resident significant delays in exhausting the landlord’s complaint process and being able to bring his complaint to this Service for an independent investigation. This failure undoubtedly caused the resident significant frustration.
  6. This Service does acknowledge that the resident requested that the landlord did not respond to his letter dated 22 November 2021, in which it was explicitly clear that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his concerns regarding the RLO role. Given the above, however, it might have been appropriate for the landlord to have treated the matter as a complaint – despite the resident’s comment. In the Ombudsman’s view, as a minimum, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its complaints process for him to seek a response should he wish to.
  7. The evidence reviewed by this Service suggested a discussion between the resident and the landlord triggered the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 18 July 2022. While this Service has not received any information regarding what the discussion entailed, it appears that the landlord referred to the resident’s unresolved complaints from his letter on 22 November 2021 to form the basis of the formal complaint.
  8. The landlord provided its initial stage one response on 2 Aug 2022. It cannot be ignored that the stage one response was issued 9 months after the resident initially raised dissatisfaction in November 2021. This was a failure of the landlord.
  9. The initial stage one response addressed several issues raised by the resident, that are not encompassed in this Service’s investigation. The landlord did however provide clarity surrounding the role of newly instated Leaseholder Officer (LO). While it is unclear if the resident raised issues verbally with landlord staff regarding the LO, the resident’s queries regarding the RLO role remained unanswered. The landlord issued a further stage one response regarding unrelated matters, which further confused the process and the resident.
  10. Within both stage one responses, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to provide the resident with its complaints policy and inform him of how to escalate his concerns. For this failure, the landlord offered £50.00. This offer was not sufficient to remedy the significant delay in the complaints process being initiated, however, as 9 months is an unreasonable length of time to wait, and it is likely that the complaint would never have been raised if the resident hadn’t discussed the unresolved matters with staff in July 2022.
  11. Overall, there was a lack of clarity regarding what complaints the landlord was responded to during the stage one process, which led to the resident receiving 2 stage one responses. This was disjointed and does not adhere to the landlord’s complaint policy or the CHC that outlines each complaint stage should be clear and unambiguous. Nevertheless, the resident remained dissatisfied with all responses received and escalated his complaint on 13 September 2022.
  12. The landlord issued its stage two response on 12 October 2022; 11 months after the resident raised his initial complaint. The landlord increased its compensation offer regarding complaint handling failures to £100. This was still not deemed to be sufficient redress considering the time it took the landlord to initiate its complaint process, which ultimately caused the resident significant frustration due to the delay in being able to bring his complaint to this Service.
  13. Following a review of the complaint after the Ombudsman intervened, the landlord has since offered the resident a total of £500 for the identified complaint handling failures, comprising of:
    1. £300 for complaint handling delays; and
    2. £200 for poor communication during the complaints process.
  14. This service expects the landlord to undertake a sufficient investigation and review all circumstances of the case at stage two. Had this been done, the landlord would have identified its failings at an earlier time and had the opportunity to put things right at an earlier stage. It appears to this service that the landlord only undertook a further review after the issue had been brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Had the landlord made this offer of redress during the complaints process it would have been satisfactory in putting things right.
  15. As it did not, however, the Ombudsman has determined that there was maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint. The Ombudsman is content that the landlord has now made a fair offer of redress and so will not be seeking to make a further financial award, however the adverse findings in this case should encourage future learning for the landlord. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the Retirement Living Officer job role.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the increase to service charges are outside this Service’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £600 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, consisting of:
    1. £535.00 offered to the resident previously, if this has not already been paid to the resident.
    2. An additional £65.00 in recognition of the identified failures regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the Retirement Living Officer job role.
  2. The landlord is ordered to provide a detailed explanation to the resident regarding the RLO job role, including what tasks the RLO generally undertakes per week, both whilst at the property and remotely.
  3. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord is ordered to undertake refresher training for all relevant staff on complaint handling and responding to complaints to ensure complaints are responded to fully, in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and the landlord’s complaints policy.