Newlon Housing Trust (202231817)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231817

Newlon Housing Trust

16 December 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:
1. Handling of repairs to the door entry system.
2. Response to the resident’s request for compensation for loss of property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord which is a housing association. The lease commenced on 21 June 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
During March 2022 the landlord received reports that the car park gate and entrance doors were faulty. On 11 April the landlord concluded that the gate was beyond repair. In his email to the landlord of 9 June the resident advised that 2 of his bikes has been stolen due to the delay in repairing the entry gate. On 13 June the resident contacted the landlord to report that all the doors and car park gates were on ‘emergency mode’ meaning anyone could access the property. On 5 July the landlord emailed the resident to say that it intended to replace the door entry system and would consult residents using the section 20 process.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2022, the main points being:
1. For months the 2 gates to access the property were broken and left wide open. Despite “numerous” complaints the repair was “very” delayed.
2. When the repair was completed initially it was not done to a suitable standard and were still broken at the time of the complaint.
3. Due to the gates being left open the security of property was compromised and his 2 bikes were stolen.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2022, as follows:
1. It was unable to repair the gate entrance and had to replace the door entry system.
2. The resident would be consulted through the section 20 process. It had sent a text to residents to advise them accordingly.
3. It hoped to start work in August.
4. Due to the period where the gates had been out of service for more than 7 days consecutively, residents would be reimbursed their service charge costs for this period. This would be calculated by its building service team and would be clarified during the section 20 process.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 July 2022 to ask to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process, the main points being:
1. He remained dissatisfied that his bikes had been stolen because of the landlord’s inaction. He felt urgent call outs, involving risk to property, should be carried out in a timely manner.
2. The service charge refund was “nowhere near” the correct amount of compensation, particularly as the issue was ongoing.
3. It asked that it provide details of his repairs request, complaints and calls.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 4 August 2022, as follows:
1. It was regrettable that faults occurred. The response provided dates when the repair was reported. It felt this demonstrated that action was taken to try to repair the gate within its 20 day target priority before determining it was beyond repair.
2. It had offered to reimburse service charges for periods when the communal entry systems were not in working order.
3. It did not reimburse any loss or damages to personal items and encouraged residents to have insurance for items of high value for them to make a claim where applicable.
4. Therefore, it could not offer any compensation for the loss of personal items during the period when the communal door entry system was not in working order.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 May 2023 to say he was waiting for his service charge refund despite calling the landlord “repeatedly.” He also sought compensation for time spent chasing the refund. The complaint became one we could investigate on 18 March 2024.

Events post internal complaints process.

On 22 May 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to chase the refund of his service charges.
On 26 June 2023 the resident called this Service to confirm that he had received a service charge refund of £18.
In an email to this Service dated 4 December 2024 the landlord confirmed that the total cost of service charges for the communal door entry system was £36.04 for the year. The system was out of order for 6 months of the year so half of the service charge was refunded.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures.

The landlord’s service charge policy sets out its responsibility to carry out section 20 consultation with residents in the event of carrying out major works in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Its service charges glossary of terms sets out that the cost of servicing and maintaining door entry systems and communal gates is a service chargeable item for leaseholders.
Its repairs policy sets out that it will respond to all urgent and routine repairs within 20 working days.
Its complaints procedure says it:
1. Will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
2. Does not apply to a claim for damages that should be handled via insurers.
Its compensation policy says:
1. It will pay compensation for quantifiable losses where the cost of loss of services is met through service charges. This includes door entry systems where the system has failed continuously for a period of 7 days or more from the time the landlord was notified. This will be calculated by the manager responsible for the contract.
2. In situations where a resident has suffered loss or damage because of it not fulfilling its obligations they may be able to claim on its liability insurance policy.
3. In the first instance the resident should always be referred to claim from their own home insurance and should not be referred immediately to claim from its insurance. If the resident states that they do not have their own home insurance, they may be entitled to claim from its policy.
4. It will consider compensating residents for unquantifiable costs such as distress caused. This can also include “recognition of time and trouble that the resident may have spent pursuing their complaint.”

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door entry system.

The landlord’s file notes show that on 9 January 2022 it received a report of a fault with a pedestrian gate. A file note dated 13 January confirmed that when its contractor attended the door and gate were found to be in working order.
On 26 January 2022 the landlord received a report of a fault to the entrance door which was jamming. A file note dated 27 January confirmed that the door, door closer and lock were in working order.
The landlord raised a further works order on 8 February 2022 in response to a report of a fault with the main entrance door. The outcome of the repair is unclear.
The landlord’s file notes show that on 24 March 2022 it raised a works order in response to a report of a fault with the main car park gate. An internal email dated 29 March shows its contractor attended but had left the gates open because it was waiting for parts to complete the repair.
On 1 April 2022 the contractor emailed the landlord to provide a quote for the repair and asked how it wanted to proceed. An internal email dated 11 April concluded that the gates had reached the end of their life span.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord sent a text to residents to advise that it had approved a quote to repair the gates and that it was waiting for its contractor to confirm when they could attend.
An internal email dated 5 May 2022 queried why the main gate and underground parking gate had been left open. It noted that they seemed to have been damaged. A response confirmed that the vehicle gates had been left open pending work starting on Monday.
On 12 May 2022 the landlord raised a works order in response to a report of a fault with the car park gate which would not open. The outcome is unclear. However, in its email to the landlord the contractor confirmed the gates were working when they left site at 5.00pm the previous day.
The evidence shows that during the period 9 January to 12 May 2022 the landlord responded appropriately to reports that the door entry system was not working. In addition to its responsive repairs it also appropriately considered the long term impact caused by the ongoing repairs. It decided to replace the system and appropriately advised residents accordingly.
On 26 May 2022 the landlord received a report that the newly repaired gate was seen being vandalised. The caller confirmed that the gate to the front of the building and gate to the car park did not close. The landlord was not responsible for the cause of the repair itself however, the outcome is unclear which is a record keeping failure.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 June 2022 to report that all doors and the car park gate were on “emergency mode.” The file note said that anyone could enter the property.
The landlord’s file note dated 13 June 2022 confirmed that the equipment was not working. The power was on but all readers were flashing and the locks were not working, including the pedestrian gate. The lower gates had been damaged because one motor was “off” and the casing broken. It had refitted as required and tried to set up the gates. They would not run correctly so were left open. Both the lower and upper gate fireman’s switches had been vandalised and needed to be replaced.
An internal email dated 14 June 2022 considered whether it was possible to carry out further works to “hold up the system” while the section 20 process was completed. The response confirmed the system was irreparable and said “I guess we start doing the intratone fob system to the main door pending a decision on the upgrade?.” A further email was sent to request that a quote be obtained for the works.
On 5 July 2022 an internal email was sent to chase whether the door had been repaired. The response was that the door was beyond repair. It was in the middle of tendering for works so any repairs in the meantime would “unbalance the process.” Although not seen by this investigation it confirmed it had updated residents by text. It aimed to issue the section 20 notice by 27 July with a view to works commencing in August.
The email also confirmed it had set up a meeting with residents on 12 July 2022 for them to raise questions about the process. This was a proactive and appropriate step in the landlord’s communication with residents.
The final email in the internal email exchange confirmed that residents would be reimbursed their service charge once works to the gate were complete.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 5 July 2022 explained why it had to follow the section 20 procedure. While this was a protracted resolution of the substantive issue, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable given the costs and scale of works.
The response also said that the resident would be reimbursed service charge costs for the period the gates were out of service in line with its compensation policy. It said this would be clarified during the section 20 consultations. Its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2022 reiterated its position.
It is unclear why the landlord took this approach because the section 20 process is entirely separate and for a specific purpose. Furthermore, it was not in line with its compensation policy.
In the resident’s email to the landlord of 4 August 2022 the resident set out his understanding that the landlord would be refunding him for a 6 month period and asked when payment would be made. In its email to this Service on 4 December 2024 the landlord confirmed it had calculated the refund for a 6 month period. However, it is unclear which months this related to which is a record keeping failure.
An internal email dated 19 July 2022 said that temporary repairs were to be agreed and that the full system upgrade was subject to the section 20 consultation process.
The landlord’s records leading up to 26 May 2022 provide an account of the reports received about the gates and the action it took to try to repair them. However, its records after that date lack clarity which have impacted on this investigation. For example, it is unclear whether temporary works were undertaken to repair the gates while the section 20 process took place.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The landlord’s records failed to demonstrate the action it took after 26 May 2022. Furthermore, it failed to provide the resident with clear and concise information regarding the service charge refund. This amount to service failure because the failure was of short duration and may not have affected the overall outcome for the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £75 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for loss of property.

The resident’s email to the landlord of 9 June 2022 set out the circumstances of the theft of his 2 bikes. However, he did not directly ask the landlord to compensate him for his loss. Therefore it was reasonable for it not to comment on this in its stage 1 complaint response of 5 July.
However, in his request to escalate to stage 2 on 7 July 2022 the resident confirmed the compensation it had offered was not sufficient and cited the value of the bikes as one of his reasons for his dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response dated 4 August 2022 referred to its complaints policy which said it would not reimburse any loss or damage to personal items. While this is not reflected in the complaints policy that was provided to this Service for the purposes of this investigation, it is set out in its compensation policy.
Its compensation policy says that in such situations residents may be able to claim on its liability insurance policy if they do not have home insurance. It is unclear whether the resident had contents insurance to make a claim on his own home insurance. However the advice given by the landlord in its complaint response was appropriately in line with its compensation policy.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response.

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident made his stage 1 complaint on 9 June 2022. The landlord provided its response on 5 July which was 18 working days later and 8 days out of time. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the delay and failed to put things right which was inappropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response confirmed that it had attempted to repair the door entry system in response to reports received. It also confirmed its decision to replace it and to commence section 20 consultations. However, it failed to provide evidence to support its assertion that it had responded appropriately. This was inappropriate because this was a key element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord to request to escalate his complaint on 7 July 2022. The landlord provided its response on 4 August which was appropriately within its timescales.
Its stage 2 complaint response of 4 August 2022 set out 8 occasions between 11 January to 16 June 2022 when a repair had been requested for the communal gate and door entry system. This included the report logged by the resident on 13 June.
However, it failed to set out its response to each repair. Therefore, the complaint response lacked impact in terms of reassuring the resident that it had responded appropriately to the issues raised.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code requires landlords’ complaint responses to confirm its decision on the complaint. The landlord’s response failed to set out its final decision on whether the complaint was upheld. This was a failure because its decision making lacked clarity.
The evidence shows that the service charge refund was paid to the resident between 22 May to 26 June 2023. This was 9 months after the landlord committed to doing so during the complaints process.
The purpose of the refund was to help restore the resident to the position he would have been in were it not for its failure. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have done all it could to ensure the payment was made promptly as an action arising from the complaints process. Instead, the delays caused further distress to the resident giving him further cause for complaint.
The landlord’s failures amount to maladministration because they had an adverse effect on the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £150 which is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the door entry system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for loss of property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £225 comprised of:
  1. £75 for the inconvenience caused by its failures in its handling of repairs to the door entry system.
  2. £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.