Milton Keynes Council (202301815)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301815

Milton Keynes City Council

27 February 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the resident’s concerns about its decision to install new communal doors and entry system to his property. 

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat within a block. The landlord, a local authority, is the freeholder.
3. The resident’s lease outlines that:
   1. the landlord will keep in good and substantial repair the exterior and structure of the building, including entry telephone systems.
   2. the resident will pay a service charge, including a payment to cover a share of the cost of maintenance and repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
4. In December 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord in response to its notice of work it proposed to complete to the communal doors at his property. He said:
   1. he was unaware that anything was wrong with the existing doors.
   2. he wanted the know if the landlord had a report explaining why the doors were beyond economic repair.
   3. he believed the landlord’s motivation for work was to “save money administrating the existing fob system for [its] tenants” and it was “unethical” of the landlord to try to pass the cost on to leaseholders.
   4. the estimated cost of the work was “astronomical”, and he questioned who else had tendered for it.
   5. he wanted an “independent enquiry” justifying the replacement of doors and the proposed costs.
5. In response to the resident, on 10 January 2020 the landlord thanked him for his observations and said:
   1. the resident’s lease stated that he would pay a percentage towards charges.
   2. it was completing door replacement on a number of blocks it owned to bring properties up to a “decent standard, to improve security and to operate the door through a cloud base[d] system”
   3. the costs included the cost of replacement doors, new handsets and a contingency charge for any “additional problem”.
   4. the charge was an estimate, and the resident would receive the actual charge once work was completed.
   5. it had undertaken a procurement process to enter into long-term agreements for repairs and maintenance of properties. It said the contractor it had appointed was responsible for the delivery of repairs and maintenance of all landlord owned properties.
6. Records show work to the resident’s door and door entry system was completed in October 2020. The landlord sent the resident a section 20 notice of costs incurred to date in May 2022. It said the resident would be required to contribute through his service charge. In March 2023 it sent the resident an invoice for the work.
7. In April 2023 the resident complained to the landlord again. He said he considered:
   1. the landlord should pay for this work as it would recoup saving from not having to manage key fob reprogramming.
   2. it was overcharging leaseholders to “offset costs of other works” the contractor was completing for the landlord.
8. In its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 June 2023 the landlord said:
   1. its response to him of 10 January 2020 had clarified the reason for the work.
   2. the invoice confirmed the work was now complete and the resident was required to pay his contribution under the terms of the lease.
9. The resident escalated his complaint on 17 July 2023 to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. He said neither the response of 10 January 2020, nor the landlord’s stage 1 response, had addressed the crux of his complaint. This was that there had been no “independent feasibility study” of the need to replace the doors or to show costs were fair and reasonable. He said:
   1. the landlord was trying to get him to fund an “unnecessary upgrade” so it could save money.
   2. there was “no transparency” around the need to replace doors or the associated cost.
   3. he believed the landlord was “grossly overcharging” him.
10. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 28 July 2023. It said:
    1. it had entered into a qualifying long-term agreement with the contractor in 2016, who were awarded the contract after a “full, open and public procurement process”.
    2. its contractor was responsible for all repairs and maintenance of properties the landlord owned.
    3. it was advised by the contractor in 2019 that the existing front and rear entrance doors were reaching the end of their component lifespan.
    4. there was no requirement for the landlord to complete a feasibility study.
11. The resident told us that all work had been completed but he was still unclear about the breakdown of costs of the work as the landlord had not provided this. He said he still believed the amount he had been charged to be excessive.
12. When providing information to the Ombudsman the landlord said:
    1. the planned work was undertaken due to the repairs coming through on the resident’s block and other blocks.
    2. it had undertaken a programme to replace the doors and the entry system on an area wide basis.
    3. the specification was based on increasing security with more robust doors and reducing decorating costs associated with wooden doors.
    4. it wanted a system it could manage remotely and that also offered it tools to monitor usage.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

13. A leaseholder may challenge the reasonableness of a service charge by applying to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT).
14. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult leaseholders for any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreements. Qualifying works are those that would cost a leaseholder more than £250.
15. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaint process. Its complaints policy sets out its aim to respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 20 working days. Its policy acknowledges that the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that stage 1 complaint responses should be provided within 10 working days. The landlord says that it is working towards reducing its timescales in line with these expectations.
16. The landlord’s compensation policy says that the landlord may consider discretionary payments of compensation depending on the severity of any failing. This includes to recognise poor complaint handling, where targets for responses have been repeatedly missed. While this compensation policy is undated, the landlord told us it was not in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.

Scope of investigation

17. During his complaint to the landlord, the resident raised concerns about the necessity for the work, and reasonableness of the cost of this. It would be appropriate for the resident to raise his concerns about the reasonableness of the cost of work to the doors with the FTT for its consideration of the matter. Our investigation has focused on how the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns when he made his complaint.
18. We have included contact the resident made with the landlord in 2019 for context. However, the focus of our investigation is on the landlord’s handling of concerns the resident raised from April 2023 about the work to entrance doors at his property.

The resident’s concerns about its decision to install new communal doors and entry system to his property.

19. While we have not seen the initial section 20 notice sent to the resident, we have seen his response of December 2020 to this notice. At this time he questioned the estimated cost the landlord had provided for this work. 
20. As the landlord correctly highlighted, in line with his lease, the resident is required to pay a contribution towards the cost of repairs and maintenance work it completed. However, it is clear from his complaint to the landlord in April 2023 that the resident believed it was overcharging him for this work.
21. The landlord provided its initial complaint response to the resident in June 2023. It appropriately directed him to a previous response it had sent him in January 2020. It said that this response explained the reasons for the work. However, this did not address the resident’s concerns that he was being overcharged for this work.
22. When the resident requested escalation of his complaint in July 2023, he said that the responses he had received from the landlord had not address the “crux” of his complaint and that the landlord had provided no transparency around the need to replace the doors or the associated costs. 
23. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 28 July 2023 explained that it had entered a qualifying long-term agreement with its contractor in 2016 for completion of all repairs to its properties. It also explained that it was not required to complete a feasibility study, and that it had been advised by its contractor in 2019 that the existing doors to communal blocks across the estate were reaching the end of their component lifespan. While this explained the reasons why the landlord had decided to undertake the work, it again failed to provide the resident with an adequate response to his concerns about the cost of this work.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response provided the resident with general information about the procurement process it had followed in 2016 when appointing the contractor. It also set out that the cost of work included the removal and replacement of existing doors, upgrade work to communal security gates and programming door entry fobs to the cloud-based software. This went some way to explaining what the work had entailed. But it provided no details to help the resident to understand the cost of each element of work. While the resident did not specifically ask for this information, he had repeatedly raised concerns that he was being overcharged. Attempting to provide further information to the resident about the cost of each aspect of work could have helped to reassure him about this. That it did not try to do so or direct the resident to where he could find this information, was a failing.
25. As noted earlier in the report, the FTT can consider the resident’s concerns about the reasonableness of the cost of work. Yet the landlord did not appropriately direct the resident to approach the FTT about this. It should reasonably have signposted the resident to the FTT to ensure he was fully aware of how he could pursue his concerns about the cost of work. That it did not do so was a failing. We have ordered that the landlord review whether its staff have adequate training and guidance about appropriate signposting to the FTT.
26. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will provide stage 1 complaint responses within 20 working days. But its eventual response was more than 5 weeks outside this target. The landlord did not communicate with the resident about this delay, and its complaint response was provided only after he contacted the Ombudsman. The resident told us that during this time he was suffering with mental health issues and that he experienced additional worry and concern about the cost of work due to the landlord’s delayed response.
27. In line with its own complaints policy and the Code, the landlord should have communicated with the resident to explain why it had not provided a response within the target timescale. That it did not do so was a failing which meant the resident experienced concern and expended time and trouble chasing a response from the landlord through the Ombudsman. We have ordered that the landlord remind staff of the importance of communicating and agreeing, in advance, extensions to complaint responses.
28. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns, raised during his complaint, about its decision to install new doors and entry system to his property. With consideration to the circumstances and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of the landlord’s failings.
29. Finally, we note that the target response times set out in the landlord’s complaints policy are not compliant with the Ombudsman’s current complaint handling code. As such, we have referred this matter to our duty to monitor team for further consideration.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its decision to install new communal doors and entry system to his property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. pay the resident £150 for the impact of the failings identified.
    3. provide the resident with the breakdown of the cost of the work to the doors, or direct him to where he can find this information.
32. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
    1. review whether its staff have adequate training and guidance about appropriate signposting to the FTT and then consider refresher training for all staff.
    2. remind its staff of the importance of communicating and agreeing and documenting, in advance, extensions to complaint responses.