Onward Homes Limited (202223887)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223887

Onward Homes Limited

20 November 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. A leaking skylight in the resident’s property.
2. Repairs and maintenance to the communal areas, including:
  1. A burst pipe in the basement area.
  2. Issues with the communal front door not being secure and the intercom failing.
  3. Damp and mould in the communal areas.
  4. A smashed window in the bike shed.
  5. A fallen down wall in the car park.
3. The general maintenance of the communal areas including the grounds maintenance service, the build-up of leaves in the car park and the communal cleaning service.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

At the time of this complaint the resident was a leaseholder of the property under a shared ownership scheme. He purchased a 2 bedroom ground floor flat, within a block of 14 newly refurbished flats, in February 2021. He sold the property in June 2024.
The resident has given permission for an advocate to act on his behalf. For the purposes of this report both the resident and his advocate will be referred to as ‘the resident’.
The information provided by the landlord indicates that the building was purchased by the landlord during a full refurbishment. Once the refurbishment was completed, the landlord sold the individual properties on a shared ownership basis. When the resident purchased his flat in February 2021, there were a number of outstanding external issues. This was partly due to a development at the rear of the building, owned by another organisation. The development has faced significant delays beyond the landlord’s control, and these delays have affected the landlord’s ability to complete the ground works to the rear of the building. In addition to this the building is located within a conservation area. Consultation with the local conservation officer is required prior to the landlord undertaking any form of work. The building was subject to a 12 month defects period following the handover to the landlord.
Between February 2021 and January 2023, the resident repeatedly raised a number of issues with the landlord relating to the security of the front door, the broken intercom system, the maintenance of the communal areas, a leaking skylight in his flat, and a smashed window in the bike storage area.
As the reported issues were not resolved by the landlord the resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2023. He said:
1. His skylight had been leaking since September 2022, and the landlord had failed to respond to his requests to fix the leak.
2. The front door to the building had never been secure and the intercom system was broken and had fallen off the door multiple times.
3. The landlord had not replaced a smashed window in the internal bike store.
4. A wall had fallen down in the car park and was unsafe and there was a build-up of leaves in the car park area.
5. There was no safe or accessible communal garden as it had never been maintained.
6. The communal areas had not been cleaned to a satisfactory standard.
A pipe burst within the basement area of the building on 7 January 2023. As there was no water supply or heating to the building the resident was moved into hotel accommodation whilst the pipe was fixed.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2023. It said it could see that the resident had reported multiple repairs over the past 2 years, and it had not always responded in a timely way. It said it understood that whilst the front door and intercom had been repaired, other repairs and maintenance issues remained outstanding. It said it had arranged for a full building audit to identify all outstanding issues and ensure that repairs were raised. It said the build-up of leaves in the car park had been removed and it was in the process of securing a grounds maintenance service. It said it had carried out an inspection on 9 January 2023, and there were no notable issues identified within the communal garden.
The landlord also confirmed that an external contractor was responsible for maintaining the garden. Although it acknowledged that there was an area of the garden that was not landscaped, and that area had not been maintained. However, it said it had raised the issue with the relevant department, and it would provide an update at a planned residents meeting. It said the cleaning contractor provided a fortnightly cleaning service. A recent inspection of the building did not highlight any issues with the cleaning standard. However, it was reviewing the cleaning provision and would be appointing new contractors and implementing new cleaning specifications. It said it would arrange a residents meeting so it could provide an update on the outcome of the building audit and its investigation into how the defects were being managed.
Following the resident’s escalation of his complaint to stage 2, the landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said the intercom system and front door lock had been repaired. It said a number of the external issues were related to delays with the development, owned by another organisation, at the rear of the block. It said it had been unable to complete the rear ground works due to those delays. It said a full building survey had taken place in April 2023 and all properties were surveyed in July 2023. It said it understood the outstanding works identified in the resident’s property related to the skylight, which had been rectified.
The landlord said it had undertaken a review of the service delivery of the grounds maintenance contract in 2022/2023. It said it found that only 7 of the 12 maintenance visits were carried out. It apologised that the service fell short of its standards and it confirmed that it had not passed any charges onto leaseholders for 2022/2023. It also acknowledged that the communal cleaning services were not consistent throughout 2022/23 and therefore it had agreed to refund 50% of the cleaning costs. It also confirmed that it had insulated the pipe responsible for the major burst in January 2023. It said all leaseholders affected by the burst pipe were moved out on a temporary basis and it had covered all associated costs. It said reimbursements had been issued for parking and food expenditure during the decant period.
The landlord also confirmed that the smashed window to the bike store area had been repaired earlier in the year. It said it was still stripping out areas to the basement with a view to understanding the true extent of damp related issues. Once known, the appropriate work would be carried out and details would be communicated to leaseholders. It said all necessary works to the car park wall would be factored into phase 2 of the external works once it had clarity on the development to the rear of the building. In addition, it said it had offered an interim payment of £700 as a gesture of goodwill.
The resident referred his complaint to the Ombudsman as he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It is noted that, during the period of this complaint, the resident raised a number of concerns with the landlord on behalf of other residents. Some of these issues affected all residents and some were specific to individual resident’s concerns. The individual aspects of other resident’s concerns cannot be investigated as part of this case due to third party data concerns and this is also prohibited by the Scheme. In addition, the resident is not, in a formal capacity, recognised by this Service as acting as a representative for any other party. The resident may wish to advise the other residents to submit their own complaints with the landlord to allow it to investigate their individual concerns fully. For clarity this is not a group complaint, this investigation will focus on the individual concerns raised by the resident to the landlord.
It should also be noted that the resident made several requests that the landlord provide a copy of the handover documents relating to its purchase of the property from the developers in December 2020. However, this aspect of the complaint has not been included within this investigation as the information requested relates to a commercial and legal transaction between the landlord and a third party prior to the resident’s purchase of the flat. The resident has not identified any basis on which he would be entitled to this information, and the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to suggest providing that information would fall under its landlord function. Therefore, this investigation will only consider events following the resident’s purchase of the property in February 2021.

A leaking skylight in the resident’s property

The resident first reported a leaking roof skylight in his property on 2 August 2022. The resident has told this Service that the landlord said it was unable to attend to the repair until 17 September 2022. It is unclear from the evidence provided why the landlord could not attend any sooner.
However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord attended to the repair in September 2022. There is also no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident to rearrange the appointment, or to explain the reasons for the delay. The repair was still outstanding when the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 4 January 2023. This was around 5 months from the date the resident first reported the leak.
The lease states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewing the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building and the roof. As the skylight was part of the roof structure, it would fall under the responsibility of the landlord to repair. The landlord’s service standards for repair say, for bigger and more complicated jobs, it will agree a date with the resident, which may be for an initial inspection. It will then stay in touch with the resident until the work is completed and it will do this within 90 days.
As the repair was still outstanding over 5 months after the resident first reported the leak, the landlord did not act in accordance with its service standards for repair. Its actions were, therefore, inappropriate in the circumstances.
On 4 January 2023 the resident raised a formal complaint. He said his ceiling/skylight had been leaking since August 2022. He said the landlord had not completed any repairs, even though he had reported it on multiple occasions. The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2023. However, it did not specifically address the outstanding skylight repair within its response.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. He informed the landlord that it had failed to respond to his complaint about the leak to his skylight. He said he originally logged the repair in August 2022, and he had also since chased the landlord. However, it remained outstanding. He told the landlord that it was a health and safety concern due to the water ingress and the broken glass. He said he was worried that the skylight was unsafe and that it would fall into his living area. He asked the landlord when it would be repaired.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 March 2023, 11 April 2023, 14 April 2023 and 24 April 2023. He said his skylight was still leaking. He said someone had been to inspect the skylight in October 2022, however, there had been no further progress. He re-iterated that it needed to be repaired as a matter of urgency as he was concerned about its safety.
The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident was evident throughout the case. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident as it caused unnecessary frustration and distress. It also meant that the resident had to take the time and trouble of repeatedly contacting the landlord about the same issues.
The landlord provided the resident with a copy of a survey report relating to his flat on 25 April 2023. The survey said extensive damage had been seen to the skylight lantern glazing and frame, which would result in moisture ingress. The survey recommended replacement of the lantern as soon as possible.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 26 April 2023. It said it would be visiting him week beginning 8 May 2023 to agree works. It apologised for the overall lack of communication, disruption, and failures in service and it offered the resident £700 as a goodwill gesture. Although, from the evidence provided, it appears that all residents were offered £700 and this was not broken down in any detail to show what it was for. The resident informed the landlord on 18 May 2023 that he would not be accepting the offer of compensation.
The landlord inspected the resident’s skylight on 2 June 2023. It sent a letter to the resident on 16 August 2023 to arrange a “pre-start” meeting on 6 September 2023. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided whether this meeting went ahead or when the repair was carried out.
It is unclear from the evidence provided why it took so long for the repair to be carried out following the survey report dated 25 April 2023, given that it had recommended the repair be carried out as soon as possible. This was unreasonable and unfair to the resident. Particularly as the landlord did not keep the resident informed as to its progress.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said it understood the works to the skylight were complete. It also confirmed that it had offered £700 to all leaseholders as an interim goodwill gesture outside of the complaints process. It acknowledged that there had been areas where it had fallen short in terms of service delivery. It said it hoped that over the last 6-9 months its commitment to resolve issues and deliver a sustained quality service was clear moving forward.
Although the landlord acknowledged its service delivery failures generally, it did not provide the resident with an explanation as to why there were delays in repairing the skylight. It did not offer any specific redress for the delays to the skylight repairs. It did not specifically apologise for the delays or acknowledge that the resident had been living with water dripping through the skylight for over 12 months. This demonstrates a lack of empathy and understanding of how the delays had affected the resident, particularly in relation to his concerns that the skylight could fall into the living room.
In summary, the landlord did not act in accordance with its service standards for repairs and its communication with the resident was poor. It did not keep the resident informed as to the progress of the repair and it demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of how the delays affected the resident. As a result of these failings, the level of detriment caused to the resident, and the landlord’s failure to provide reasonable redress, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Repairs and maintenance to the communal areas

Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewing the cisterns and tanks and other gas, electrical, drainage, ventilation and water apparatus, the common parts and the parking spaces.

A burst pipe in the basement area

The resident was on holiday on 7 January 2023 when he was notified of a burst pipe within the utility area in the basement of the building. The burst was contained within the basement area and did not directly affect the resident’s property in terms of water ingress/damage. The landlord sent a plumber to attend to the burst on the same day. This was in line with the landlord’s repairs service standards to attend to emergency repairs on the same day. It is usual that a burst would be “made safe” at the initial emergency appointment. The operative would then be expected to assess the situation and arrange the necessary follow on repairs to rectify the issue.
The resident has told this Service that the plumber was unable to fix the burst at the first visit. Therefore, he turned off the water supply whilst waiting for a part to be available. This meant that the residents within the block had no access to water or heating. The landlord moved the residents into temporary hotel accommodation. This was a reasonable response in the circumstances given that residents were unable to stay in their properties without heating and water.
The resident returned from holiday on 9 January 2023. The landlord contacted the resident on the same day. It said it was speaking to colleagues to obtain an update and timescale for the repair and it would keep the resident informed of any progress. It confirmed that the offer of hotel accommodation would be made available to all residents. It also confirmed that a plumber would be attending the following day. However, it said that it could not guarantee that the burst would be resolved at that point.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 January 2023. He said it had been 3 days since the pipe burst and the problem had still not been fixed. He said the landlord had not given any indication as to when he would be able to go back to his flat. He told the landlord that there was no parking available at the hotel and he asked whether it would reimburse the parking charges of around £20 per day. He also asked when the plumber would be attending the building.
The landlord responded on the same day and told the resident that the plumber was due to arrive at lunchtime. It said it hoped that the issue would be resolved that day. However, it would keep him informed. The landlord confirmed that it would arrange for extensions to the temporary accommodation and it asked the resident to keep parking receipts for reimbursement. The landlord contacted the resident again later that day. It told him that a decision had been made to extend the hotel accommodation by a further night as it could not confirm that the water supply would be reinstated that day.
The landlord contacted the resident on 11 January 2023. It said the water supply had been reinstated, however, it wanted to retest the pipe again before resident’s moved back in. It said it had offered residents a further night in the hotel, although there was nothing stopping him from returning should he wish to do so. The resident moved back into his flat on 12 January 2023.
The repair to the pipe took 4 days to complete. This was in line with the landlord’s service standards for repairs which says it will complete repairs that can be completed in one visit within twenty days. More complex repairs would be completed within 90 days.
As the burst happened after the resident raised a formal complaint, it was not considered within the stage 1 response. When the resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023, he asked the landlord to confirm when the pipe would be insulated. The landlord confirmed on 23 January 2023 that the operative would be on site at 9am on 24 January 2023 to insulate the pipe.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 February as he had not been reimbursed for the expenses he incurred whilst staying in the hotel. The landlord responded on the same day and said it had chased the outstanding reimbursements. The resident chased the landlord again on 11 April 2023 and 14 April 2023 as he still had not received his parking reimbursement of £46. The resident received the reimbursement payment on 26 April 2023. This was over 3 months from the date he incurred the expense. This was unreasonable and caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble chasing the landlord for payment.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said the pipe was insulated in February 2023. It said all leaseholders affected by the burst pipe were temporarily moved out and all associated costs were covered by the landlord. It did not, however, acknowledge or apologise for the delay in the resident’s reimbursement of his parking charges.

Issues with the communal front door not being secure and the intercom failing

The resident raised issues with the front door not being secure when he first moved into the property in February 2021. He also raised concerns that the intercom system kept falling off the front door and that it did not keep the building secure. In August 2021 the internal bike store was accessed by unknown perpetrators and bikes were stolen. The resident reported that the insecure front door had allowed the perpetrators access to the communal area and they were then able to break into the bike store. It is unclear as to whether the resident was directly affected by the break-in, or whether his concerns were in relation to general security concerns and the losses incurred by other residents. It is also unclear as to whether the landlord carried out any repairs to the door and/or intercom system between February 2021 and August 2021.
A residents meeting took place on 23 November 2021 to discuss outstanding defects and issues with the security and safety of the building. The landlord said it would complete the outstanding work before Christmas 2021. The notes from the meeting suggest that the landlord was awaiting a planning decision in relation to the replacement of the front door.
A new communal front door was fitted in April 2022. The resident reported that the lock broke within a week. The landlord repaired the front door lock sometime in May 2022. The resident has informed this Service that the lock continued to break going forward, leaving the building insecure at times. It is unclear from the evidence provided as to the exact date the repair was reported to the landlord in April 2022. It is also unclear as to the exact date the door was repaired in May 2022. Therefore, this Service is unable to make a finding as to whether the repair was completed by the landlord within the repairs service standard of 20 days.
The resident reported that the front door had broken again in August 2022. He said, on this occasion the door would not open or close when using a key fob. The landlord attended to the repair a week later. However, the resident said the door was not fixed properly. The resident reported further issues with the front door in November 2022 and December 2022. Although it is unclear from the information provided as to whether the landlord attended to repair the door on these occasions. If it did, it is also unclear as to whether the repairs were competed within the timeframes set within the service standards for repairs.
There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord looked into why the door/lock was breaking down so frequently. There is also no evidence to suggest that it considered alternative options to improve security, such as a stronger lock, or a different type of lock. This was unreasonable, particularly as the door/lock was breaking so frequently.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2023. He said the front door to the building had never been secure in the 2 years that he had lived in the building. He said anybody could enter the building and because of this he did not feel safe in his own home. He also told the landlord that the intercom system was broken and had fallen off the door multiple times. He said that he was often unsure as to whether he would be able to gain access to the building when he returned home. He told the landlord that the building was currently insecure, which he classed as an emergency, therefore it needed to attend the following day. It is unclear from the evidence provided when or whether the door was repaired.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 18 January 2023 said it could see from its records that multiple repairs had been reported over the past 2 years. It acknowledged that it had not always responded in a timely way. However, it said it understood that the front door and intercom had been repaired and were in working order.
The resident responded on the same day to escalate the complaint to stage 2. He said the intercom and door had not been fixed. He said the intercom had been stuck on the door to a poor standard and the door lock was still broken. He asked the landlord to send an appropriately qualified contractor to fix the lock and review the intercom system.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 27 January 2023. It said an engineer had attended to the door that afternoon and found that the closer was damaged and leaking oil. It said the closer had been replaced and the door was operational. It said it hoped that the issue with the door had been fully resolved. The resident also confirmed on 30 January 2023, that the contractor had tested the intercom, increased the voltage, and removed a wire that was hanging out.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said it was pleased to confirm that the intercom system and front door lock had been repaired.
Although the door had been fixed prior to the stage 2 response, the landlord did not acknowledge the overall issues with the door and intercom consistently breaking down since February 2021. It did not recognise the affect this had on the resident, particularly in relation to feeling unsafe within his own home. It did not recognise the time and trouble the resident had gone to repeatedly raising and chasing the repairs to the door and intercom with the landlord.

Damp and mould in the communal areas

It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when damp in the communal areas was first reported to the landlord. However, these issues were noted within the resident’s evidence and requests to the landlord in January 2023. The resident told the landlord that the carpets were soaking wet and the basement area was “smelly and disgusting”. The resident also questioned whether the electrics were safe. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord responded directly to the resident’s concerns. However, the landlord has not disputed that there were delays in the completion of the communal repairs. It has also not disputed that the delays were outside of the timeframes set within its service standards.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2023. He told the landlord that the communal areas were beginning to look run down and smell mouldy. The landlord did not respond to the specific issue raised within the stage 1 response dated 18 January 2023. However, it did refer in general to repairs and maintenance issues that remained outstanding within the block. It said it had arranged for a full building audit to be carried out to identify all outstanding issues and to ensure all required repairs were raised. It said it would update residents on completion of the audit with confirmation of repair order numbers and response timescales. It acknowledged that there were issues that had not been properly addressed during the defects period. It said it would be carrying out a review of the defects process to identify what went wrong and how it could avoid the same issues happening in the future.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. He asked the landlord when the audit and the review would take place. He also asked when it would carry out the necessary repairs to deal with the damp.
The landlord contacted the resident on 15 February 2023. It said it had appointed independent surveyors to complete a full inspection of the whole building over a 2 day period. It said it would also survey the interior of each property, the internal and external communal areas including the garden, and an external drone inspection would also take place. It confirmed on 16 February 2023 that the surveys would be carried out on 28 February 2023 and 1 March 2023. Although it is clear from the evidence provided that it took around 2 years to get to this point, this was a sensible approach to ensure the outstanding defects were identified and rectified.
The landlord sent the survey report to the resident on 26 April 2023. The report highlighted a number of issues within the building. The landlord acknowledged its failings and told the resident it was “keen to put things right”. It said it had developed an action plan and it would provide regular updates on its progress. It also confirmed that it intended to carry out the works at its own expense and it was in the process of appointing a contractor. It apologised to the resident and offered £700 compensation as a gesture of goodwill. This was based on the failures in service, lack of communication, and disruption caused. However, this offer of compensation was outside of the complaints process.
A meeting between the landlord and the residents took place on 25 May 2023. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the minutes of the meeting. The resident has told this Service that no updates on the plan of works was provided and no work had been completed at this point. Although the landlord did provide a copy of its action plan to the resident on 26 May 2023.
Based on the evidence provided, it would be reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor throughout this case. The landlord was aware of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the outstanding work and the lack of updates. It was also aware of the time spent by the resident attempting to obtain updates from the landlord. Even though it apologised for its poor communication on 26 April 2023, when it offered the resident compensation of £700, there is no evidence to suggest that the communication greatly improved.
The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 2 August 2023. It said it had erected scaffolding on 28 July 2023, which would be in place for 2 weeks. This was so it could inspect the rear low-level roof, install leaf guards, closely inspect the secondary roof light, clear the blocked rainwater hopper and make sure the outlets were clear. It also told the resident that it hoped the basement works would be completed by December 2023. It said it was pricing the specification and once it was agreed, it would prepare for the works. This included placing skips on site, briefing trades and preparing fencing. It confirmed that it had arranged to meet with residents on 8 August 2023 and 5 September 2023 to provide further updates. However, it is unclear from the evidence provided what updates were given to residents as the landlord has not provided minutes of the meetings to this Service.
The landlord contacted the resident on 22 September 2023. It said the works to the basement were due to begin on 25 September 2023. It said the area would be stripped out, inspected, and treated. It said it would be on site on 27 September 2023 from 2pm onwards to speak to residents about the ongoing works.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said it had carried out a full building survey and its contractor had been on site in August 2023 carrying out the works to the rear of the building and external works. It said affected leaseholders had been updated throughout the process and measures had been put in place to progress the works. It said it had discussed the works with residents in meetings held on 11 April 2023, 25 May 2023, and 5 September 2023. It said an action plan had been circulated to all leaseholders to keep them informed. A notice board had been installed in the communal area, to provide regular updates and to inform residents of pending works.
The landlord said all properties were surveyed again in July 2023. It undertook a full review of issues reported during the defects period in August 2023. It said works to the basement flats began on 18 September 2023 and a notice was issued about noise disturbance. It said there were delays in the works starting, but it had to ensure it complied with its insurance company so it could process the claim for the burst. It said it had also obtained several specialised surveys, which had added to the timescales. It said it had carried out home visits on 27 September 2023, and it had arranged follow up visits for 19 October 2023. It said it had also offered an interim payment of £700 as a gesture of goodwill. It acknowledged that there had been areas where it had fallen short in terms of service delivery to its leaseholders. However, it hoped that over the last 6-9 months its commitment to resolve the issues and deliver a sustained quality service was clear moving forward. It said it would continue to meet with the resident until all actions were resolved.
It was clear from the stage 2 response that the landlord had a plan in place to complete the defects/repairs. It also acknowledged its service failures and the delays in starting the works following the surveys. However, it did not acknowledge or consider the affect this situation had had on the resident. This demonstrates the landlord’s lack of empathy and understanding. The stage 2 response also refers to the payment of £700 as being an “interim payment”. Yet this was not made clear to the resident in the landlord’s earlier letter when it first made the offer. There was no indication within the stage 2 response when or whether it would consider further compensation payments.

A smashed window in the bike shed

The resident reported a smashed window in the bike store in November 2022. He asked the landlord to replace the window as a matter of urgency. The landlord carried out what appears to be a temporary repair, using plastic film and a piece of wood, in December 2022.
The resident raised the outstanding repair with the landlord in his formal complaint dated 4 January 2023. He told the landlord that the window in the internal bike store had been smashed during a break-in in the internal bike store approximately 3 months ago. He said it had been reported to the landlord, however, the repair was still outstanding.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. This was because the landlord did not address his concerns relating to the window in the stage 1 response dated 18 January 2023. He asked the landlord when the window would be fixed.
The landlord contacted the resident on 30 January 2023. It said it would be attending the block on 31 January 2023 to inspect and measure the window in the bike store.
It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when the window was repaired, however, the resident has told this Service that it was sometime in June 2023. This was around 7 months from the date the issue was first reported.
The landlord’s service standards for repair say, for repairs that can be completed in one visit, it will offer an appointment and carry the repair out within twenty days. For bigger and more complicated jobs, it will agree a date, which may be for an initial inspection, and complete the work within 90 days (approx. 3 months). It is unclear from the evidence provided which category the landlord allocated to the repair. However, in any event, as the repair took around 7 months to complete, the landlord did not act in accordance with its service standards for repair. Its actions were, therefore, inappropriate in the circumstances.
In the stage 2 response sent to the resident on 19 October 2023, the landlord said the smashed window to the bike shed had been replaced earlier in the year. It did not acknowledge that the repair had taken longer than it should have done and it did not apologise for the delay. It also did not acknowledge the affect the delays to repair the window had on the resident as he did not feel that the property was safe or secure.

A fallen down wall in the car park

The resident reported that a wall in the car park had fallen down in December 2022. He told the landlord that the bricks had been left in the car park area.
The resident raised the issue again in his formal complaint on 4 January 2023, as the landlord had made no attempt to clear the bricks. The resident told the landlord that the carpark was an “unsafe space”.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 January 2023. He told the landlord that the bricks in the car park had still not been moved. He also asked the landlord whether a new wall would be built.
The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns as to the brick wall within its stage 1 response dated 18 January 2023. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. He told the landlord that it had failed to respond to his complaint about the brick wall. He confirmed that the bricks had been removed, however, he wanted confirmation as to whether the wall would be rebuilt.
It is unclear from the evidence provided exactly how long it took the landlord to respond to the resident’s report of the fallen wall and to remove the bricks. The bricks were removed sometime between 17 January 2023 (when the resident confirmed the bricks were still there) and 20 January 2023 (when the resident confirmed they had been removed. However, this Service has not been provided with the date the issue was first reported. Therefore, it has not been possible to make a finding in this regard.
The landlord contacted the resident on 30 January 2023. It said it would be on site the following day with its contractor to inspect the fallen boundary wall.
The landlord arranged for a full survey of the building to take place on 28 February 2023 and 1 March 2023 due to the numerous issues within the block. The survey report, dated 25 April 2023, said the right hand side boundary wall had been damaged by neighbouring trees with a section missing in the car park. The survey recommended that “the landlord appoint a party wall surveyor and reconstruct the wall utilising suitable methods to accommodate the tree”.
On 26 April 2023 the landlord offered the resident £700 as a gesture of goodwill and an apology. This amount had been offered to all residents as the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s experiences had “not always been positive”, and it was keen to “put things right”. The resident rejected the compensation on 18 May 2023.
The landlord’s stage 2 response dated 19 October 2023 said necessary works to the car park wall would be factored into phase 2 of the external works, once it had clarity on the development to the rear of the building. However, the landlord did not acknowledge or recognise in the response that the resident had been requesting information in relation to the fallen wall since January 2023. It also did not apologise for the delays in providing the resident with an update.

Summary

The landlord completed the repairs to the burst pipe within the timeframes set out in its repair services standards. However, there were significant delays to the completion of the repairs to the smashed window in the bike store and the outstanding defects and repairs to the communal areas. The landlord did not recognise the affect the delays had on the resident, particularly in relation to his concerns around the security and safety of the building. It demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of the resident’s concerns and its overall communication with the resident was poor. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case

The general maintenance of the communal areas including the grounds maintenance service, the build-up of leaves in the car park and the communal cleaning service

The resident raised issues with the landlord about the completion and maintenance of the communal garden and the cleaning of the communal areas on multiple occasions from February 2021. The resident raised these issues again with the landlord at a residents meeting on 23 November 2021. It is unclear from the evidence provided whether the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns.
The resident reported further concerns to the landlord in March 2022. He said there had been no maintenance of the grounds and car park. Leaves had collected in the carpark, and he felt this was unsafe and a slipping hazard. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns or arranged for the leaves to be removed. This was unreasonable and demonstrates a lack of communication from the landlord.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 4 January 2023. He said the car park was full of leaves and this had become a slipping hazard. He said there was no safe or accessible communal garden, as it had never been maintained. He also said that there was minimal communal cleaning taking place. Yet he was paying for the maintenance and communal cleaning within his service charge.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 17 January 2023. He told the landlord that the leaves had been cleared away from the front door. However, he asked the landlord to confirm how often it would be maintaining the communal grounds and car park going forward.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint response on 18 January 2023. It said it was pleased to hear that the build–up of leaves had been removed from the car park. It said it was making changes to its ground maintenance service. It said residents would see improvements in the responsiveness of its service once this was done. It said it had carried out an inspection on 9 January 2023 and found that the communal garden was tidy and well maintained. It said there was some temporary fencing around the perimeter of the property that belonged to another organisation. The fencing could not be moved because of the work being carried out to a development at the rear of the property. It said it would monitor the situation to ensure the fence was being maintained.
The landlord said the garden was maintained by its contractor. However, there was an area of the garden that was not landscaped, and this area was not being maintained. It said it would look into this and provide an update to resident at the next meeting. It said the cleaning contractor provided a fortnightly cleaning service. A recent inspection of the building had not highlighted any issues with the standard of cleaning. However, it said it was reviewing the cleaning provision and would be appointing new contractors and implementing new cleaning specifications going forward.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023 as he was unhappy with the landlord’s response. He also disagreed that the communal garden was tidy and well maintained. He contacted the landlord again on 18 July 2023 to report that there was still a lack of cleaning in the communal areas. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns. This was unreasonable and demonstrates the landlord’s lack of communication with the resident.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. It said it had undertaken a review of the grounds maintenance contract for 2022/2023. It said only 7 of the 12 maintenance visits had been carried out. It apologised for the service failures and said that, as it had not managed the external contractors well, it had not passed any charges onto leaseholders for grounds maintenance for 2022/2023. It said it had brought the grounds maintenance service in–house in April 2023 and there had been notable improvements. The landlord also acknowledged that the communal cleaning services were inconsistent throughout 2022/2023, so it had agreed to refund 50% of the cleaning costs. It said it had also brought the cleaning services in-house and it was confident that residents would receive a better service going forward.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In this case the landlord’s apology for the services failures, its decision not to charge the resident for grounds maintenance services in 2022/2023, and its reduction of the charge for communal cleaning by 50% represents reasonable redress for the identified failings. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has been able to evidence it made reasonable and proactive efforts to resolve the complaint and “put things right” in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
In summary, although there were service failures, the landlord put things right through its complaints process. The redress offered by the landlord was reasonable in the circumstances and appropriate with the level of its failing.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 4 January 2023. The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 18 January 2023. This was within the landlord’s timeframe of 10 working days for stage 1 complaints.
The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 20 January 2023. On 11 September 2023 the resident contacted this Service as he had not received a response at stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. We contacted the landlord on 21 September 2023 and asked it to respond.
The landlord sent the resident a stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023. This was 9 months from the date of escalation and significantly outside of the landlord’s timeframe of 20 working days for stage 2 complaints. The landlord did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its stage 2 response.
Given the significant delay at stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord did not act in accordance with its complaints policy when responding to the resident’s complaint. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. This not only delayed a resolution to the resident’s complaint, but it also delayed the resident’s escalation to this Service.
In summary, the landlord failed to comply with the timeframes set within its complaints policy for the stage 2 response. It did not acknowledge the delay within its stage 2 response. As a result of this failure and the level of detriment caused to the resident, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leaking skylight in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs and maintenance to the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the general maintenance of the communal areas including the grounds maintenance service, the build-up of leaves in the car park and the communal cleaning service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident total compensation of £1,800. This is made up of:
  1. £750 for the delays in completing the repairs to the resident’s skylight and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  2. £850 for the delays in completing the repairs/defects to the communal areas and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £200 in recognition of the complaint handling failures and the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. Pay the compensation directly to the resident.
4. Provide this Service with a full update as to the current status of the identified remedial works highlighted within the building survey report dated 25 April 2023. Where the work has not been completed, the landlord must provide this Service with the dates it expects to complete the work.
5. Provide this Service with a copy of the review of the defects process completed by the landlord following the stage 1 response.