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

Orbit Housing Association Limited (202348692)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308440

COMPLAINT 202348692

Orbit Housing Association Limited

4 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Repairs to the front door, windows, and intercom.
    3. Concerns raised about the maintenance/upkeep of communal areas.
    4. Concerns raised about its record keeping.
    5. Service charge enquiries.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2 bedroom first floor flat. There is one property below and none above. There are communal gardens surrounding the flat, along with a gated communal car park. The resident has lived at the property for around 20 years. He purchased the property through a voluntary right to buy scheme from the landlord in 2020. His lease began in March 2020.
  2. The resident has physical disabilities that impact his mobility. The landlord was aware of his personal circumstances. The property has an intercom system to control access to the front door, installed by the landlord prior to the resident purchasing the property.
  3. In January 2022 the resident reported ASB to the landlord including loud music and shouting from a neighbour. The landlord unsuccessfully attempted to visit both properties on 7 February 2022. It left a calling card to each party. The resident replied to the landlord the same day. He said that after the landlord delivered the calling card he heard his neighbour shouting homophobic abuse and threats of violence about him. He recorded the incident on his CCTV. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports and said he would be making a formal complaint.
  4. The landlord discussed the ASB with police on 18 February 2022. It recorded the incident as a hate crime and referred the resident to victim support. On 28 February 2022 the landlord recorded that the resident had asked that it liaise with the police before making further contact with either the resident or alleged perpetrator. The landlord closed the case on 1 March 2022 following advice from the police, as they were taking no further action at the resident’s request.
  5. On 30 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord asking for clarification around some service charges he received. These related to the replacement of a sign, a TV aerial, bulk waste removal, grounds contract, and the management fee. The landlord replied to the resident on 1 September 2022 and clarified the reasons for its charges.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 September 2022. He said:
    1. He was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB.
    2. While conducting grounds maintenance, the landlord’s contractor had damaged his plant pots.
    3. The communal gardens were untidy and other residents were misusing them and the communal car park.
    4. The landlord had replaced the hinges on his windows and installed restrictors. Due to his physical disabilities, the new restrictors prevented him from opening his windows.
    5. A communal pedestrian gate was not locking properly. He last reported the issue in August 2022.
    6. He had changed his name and provided a copy of the deed as evidence. The landlord had not updated its records accordingly.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022. It provided a record of its estate inspections and said that it found the standard to be generally good with minor issues with litter. It had cut back some shrubbery and removed litter. It believed that the estate was prone to a build up of litter due to the proximity of a nearby bus stop and main road. It also said:
    1. It reviewed service charges for 1 April 2021-31 March 2022 and had credited the resident’s service charge account by £54.48 on 16 August 2022. This credit was the result of a lower ground maintenance cost than budgeted for.
    2. It was responsible for the maintenance of window frames alone. All other repairs were the resident’s responsibility. It had replaced the windows as part of the voluntary right to buy scheme. It would not repair/replace the window restrictors as it installed them correctly.
    3. It reviewed its records and was unable to find a copy of the deed for the resident’s name change. It provided an email address for him to send the documents.
    4. It had responded to the resident’s reports of ASB in accordance with its procedures. It did not find any wrongdoing and did not uphold this complaint.
    5. It had written to all residents about misuse of the communal car park.
    6. It planned to inspect all communal gates and would confirm a suitable resolution.
  8. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and sought to escalate his complaint on 13 October 2022. Broadly, he disagreed with its findings and its assertion that he was responsible for the window repairs. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023. It partially upheld the complaint. It provided a chronology of events regarding the reports of ASB. It said that:
    1. It had referred the resident to its safeguarding team at the time of the reported ASB, who gave him advice by telephone. It closed its investigation at his request. It found no evidence that it had acted outside its policy.
    2. It was not aware of the damage done to the resident’s plant pots prior to his complaint. It offered £30 compensation towards the costs of repairing/replacing the pots.
    3. It referred to previous correspondence addressing communal maintenance. It acknowledged that there had been some service level problems which it had addressed with the contractor since. It would review and calculate any service charge refunds at the end of the financial year.
    4. It directed the resident to his lease and said it was responsible for the window frames only. Any glazing or window furniture were his responsibility.
    5. It had repaired the pedestrian gates. It planned to conduct a further inspection to ensure that they were working properly.
    6. It found a communication from the resident from 1 July 2022 informing it of a name change. It noted that there was no evidence to confirm the change of name and asked him to send the evidence through.
    7. It had visited the estate and found no substantial evidence of any misuse of the communal areas by other residents. There was evidence of toys in the communal gardens but it expected residents to address these issues between themselves. It asked for photographic evidence of any further problems so that it could address them directly with the other residents involved. It had erected new signage to discourage residents from blocking the communal car park gates, or parking in a way that would prevent access.
    8. It planned to revisit the site to review the litter and consider other means to resolve this issue. It agreed that litter was a problem on the estate but disagreed that it was taking no action to address this.
  9. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and escalated his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  10. The resident made a further complaint on 27 July 2023. He said:
    1. The landlord did not hold accurate records of his personal data.
    2. The landlord attended an emergency repair to his front door and intercom in the early hours of the morning. However, it did not knock the door or ring the doorbell. He had a recording of the incident on his CCTV. He reported this on 25 July 2023 and had no response from the landlord.
    3. He was unhappy that the landlord had charged him for the maintenance of a TV aerial and removal of fly tipped waste.
  11. The resident logged a further complaint on 19 October 2023. He was unhappy with the lack of response to previous emails sent to the landlord. He asked for a breakdown of the service charges for insurance and the sinking fund. He said:
    1. The landlord had unnecessarily replaced parking signs. He did not want to pay for this service.
    2. He was unwilling to pay for the removal of his neighbour’s bulk waste.
    3. The communal hedges and gardens were untidy. The landlord had not conducted appropriate maintenance or litter picking for months at a time.
    4. The landlord billed him for the removal of a satellite dish installed by a previous tenant. He did not want to pay for this service.
    5. The landlord billed him for the upkeep of a TV aerial. The landlord fitted one especially for a former tenant and there was no communal aerial. He did not want to pay for this service.
  12. The landlord sent a holding letter on 1 November 2023 saying there would be a delay in its stage 1 response. It offered the resident £300 compensation. It sent further holding letters on 6 November, 22 November and 13 December 2023, and on 5 January 2024.
  13. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024. It apologised for the time taken to issue its response. It apologised for not updating its records sooner, and asked the resident to call its contact centre so that it could correct them. It said:
    1. It was only liable for the glass in the front door and not the frame or locking mechanisms. It was not responsible for the maintenance of the intercom system and would therefore not attend any repairs to it.
    2. It offered £200 compensation for not having accurate records. This comprised of:
      1. £50 for service failure.
      2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. £50 for delays in its response.
  14. The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 11 March 2024. He said:
    1. The repair and maintenance of the front door was the landlord’s responsibility. He had to wait an unnecessary amount of time for the landlord to attend and fix the door, which remained unrepaired. He must contact named officers to raise repairs, causing further delays.
    2. He felt the landlord had not explained why its records for him had changed. This caused him inconvenience as he had to call and change it.
    3. He felt the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was insufficient.
  15. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024. It did not uphold the complaint regarding the repairs or service charges. It upheld the issues with its records. It said:
    1. The front door was his responsibility to repair as a homeowner.
    2. The service charges included the maintenance of a communal TV aerial and the communal areas. It had charged for a waste removal service after clearing some fly tipping.
    3. It apologised for the error in its records regarding his date of birth. It was unable to update the system until he called in to make the request. It apologised for the inconvenience.
    4. It increased its total offer of compensation to £300. This comprised of:
      1. £50 for service failure.
      2. £100 for distress and inconvenience.
      3. £50 for delays in its complaint response.
      4. £100 for its record keeping.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman previously considered complaints made by the resident regarding the landlord’s standard of communal cleaning and maintenance. Case 202110732 was determined on 28 September 2023. This related to complaints made on 7 April 2022 and a final response issued on 6 June 2022. In addition to other compensation, we ordered the landlord to conduct a clean up of the estate and refund 43% of the grounds maintenance costs between December 2018 and March 2021. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s response to reports from his complaint from 20 September 2022 onwards.
  2. The Ombudsman will not consider the amount of, or increase to, service charges nor whether the amount the landlord charged is reasonable. This is in accordance with paragraph 42d of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication, including its response to the concerns raised about specific charges and the services provided (in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles). In this respect, the Ombudsman will consider whether a landlord has acted fairly given all the circumstances of a case, whether it has identified and put right service failures and, where appropriate, whether it has learnt from the outcomes of the individual complaint to improve its overall service delivery.

Reports of ASB

  1. In ASB cases, it is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether ASB occurred or who is responsible. The Ombudsman can assess how a landlord has dealt with reports it has received in the timeframe of a complaint. We can also assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure and good practice, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The landlord’s ASB policy categories ASB incidents dependent on severity. It considers threats of violence, verbal abuse, and intimidation as category A incidents. It considers noise nuisance as category B incidents. It will respond to category A incidents within 1 working day and category B incidents within 3 working days. It will conduct a risk assessment and action plan with each complainant. This will include a contact plan.
  3. The landlord did not conduct an appropriate investigation into the resident’s initial reports of ASB. The resident reported that his neighbour was playing loud music and shouting on 18 January 2022. In accordance with its ASB policy, the landlord would consider this as a category B incident. It should have responded to the resident within 3 working days, interviewed him, conducted a risk assessment, and agreed an action plan. Instead, its records show that its first response to the reports was on 7 February 2022, which was around 14 working days later. It did not conduct an initial complainant interview or agree an action plan to resolve the ASB.
  4. The landlord’s decision to visit the resident on 7 February 2022 was reasonable. It is acceptable to establish contact with the resident to discuss the allegations and agree how it will investigate his reports.
  5. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to contact the alleged perpetrator without the resident’s consent. It should have discussed the complaint with the resident prior to contacting the alleged perpetrator. It should have risk assessed the resident’s report and agreed an action plan to resolve the ASB. Its failure to do so contributed to a breakdown of the landlord/tenant relationship.
  6. The resident told the landlord on 7 February 2022 that there was an escalation of the ASB, leading to threats of violence and homophobic abuse from the alleged perpetrator. This formed the basis of his original complaint as he believed that the landlord’s actions contributed to this escalation. We cannot determine that the landlord’s decision to leave a card with the alleged perpetrator caused an escalation in the ASB. However, we can decide that its failure to communicate with the resident effectively prior to commencing an investigation was inappropriate in the circumstances.
  7. There were further delays in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. The resident reported hate related verbal abuse on 7 February 2022. The landlord should have considered his reports as a category A incident and investigated the allegations accordingly. It did respond to the resident’s emails and appropriately recognised that the police were the leading agency for the hate related incidents. Its decision not to act until the outcome of their investigation was known was in accordance with its hate crime policy. However, it did not discuss the case with police until 18 February 2022. This was around 9 working days later. There were further delays in its communication with the police as it did not respond to the police contact until 28 February 2022. Altogether, there were combined delays of around 14 working days. These delays were inappropriate and would have contributed to the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
  8. The landlord’s records show that it made a referral to victim support on 18 February 2022. It stopped further intervention at the resident’s request until the police completed their investigation. Its decision to close the case on 1 March 2022 at the resident’s request was reasonable.
  9. The landlord did not use its complaint handling effectively to assess its response to the resident’s reports of ASB. In its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022, the landlord failed to recognise the delay to contact the resident following his reports of ASB in January 2022. In its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023, it appropriately provided a chronology of events regarding the reports of ASB and recognised the referrals made for support. However, its decision that there was no evidence that it had acted outside its policy shows that it did not fully consider its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB. It missed an opportunity to reflect on the delays to respond to the resident and the failure to conduct a risk assessment or action plan.
  10. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB. The landlord did not conduct an action plan, risk assessment, or respond to the resident within the timescales set out in its policy and procedures. It did not recognise its delays or its failures to follow its policy in its complaint responses. It did not put things right for the resident or learn from outcomes. The landlord should pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Repairs to the front door, windows, and intercom

  1. Schedule 1 of the lease agreement states that the window frames (except for the internal surface of the frames) and the front door (including door furniture) are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. It states that the windows (including glass) and the window furniture (including locks, catches, and fastenings) are the resident’s responsibility to maintain.
  2. It is unclear from the records available to the Ombudsman when the landlord replaced the windows in the property. However, the records show the resident complained about draughty windows in May 2021. The landlord replaced the hinges and sealed the windows sometime between 2021-2022 in accordance with an agreement made during the voluntary right to buy. While repairing the windows, the landlord installed additional restrictors to the top and bottom of the resident’s windows.
  3. In his complaint to the landlord on 20 September 2022, the resident said the new restrictors meant he was unable to open his windows. He told the landlord that he was unable to reach the top restrictors because of his physical disabilities. He also said the landlord refused to log an inspection for the windows. The landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022. Instead, it directed the resident to his lease and said that it had installed the windows correctly. It did not set out how it made this decision, or that it had considered the impact the alterations it made had on the resident.
  4. Although it is correct that the window furniture is the resident’s responsibility to maintain, the landlord did not put things right in the circumstances. The landlord was aware of the resident’s physical vulnerabilities, which he highlighted within his complaint. Its decision to install the restrictors on the windows placed the resident at a disadvantage in comparison to other persons. It was clear from the resident’s complaint that the windows were not fit for purpose. The landlord was responsible for the design of the window mechanism. The landlord should reflect on its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010 and its duty to make reasonable adjustments.
  5. The resident reiterated his concerns regarding his windows in his escalation request on 13 October 2022. He also said that he was not compensated for the delay to repair the windows referred to by the landlord in its stage 1 response. In its stage 2 response on 27 February 2023 the landlord restated its position. It held that it was not responsible for the maintenance of the windows. It did not address the resident’s complaint that he had not received compensation previously owed. It did not consider the impact the restrictors that it installed on the windows had on the resident. It was not fair and did not put things right.
  6. In July 2023 the resident reported problems with the front door lock to the landlord. The landlord appropriately attempted to conduct an emergency repair on 25 July 2023. However, it did not gain access or complete the repair. In his complaint to the landlord on 27 July 2023 the resident said that the landlord had not knocked the door or rang his doorbell. The landlord failed to address this concern in its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024. It said that the landlord was responsible for the glass in the door only and not the frame or locking mechanisms. This is not reflective of the terms set out in the lease agreement which considers the front door to form part of the retained property.
  7. The resident made a further report that the front door was not shutting properly on 15 February 2024. The landlord’s records show that it adjusted the front door within 3 working days on 20 February 2024. Although it responded within a reasonable period, it is unclear whether the front door remained insecure between 25 July 2023 and 15 February 2024. In his request to escalate his complaint on 11 March 2024, the resident said the landlord had not repaired the front door. He said that he had to wait an unnecessary amount of time for the landlord to attend to the door repair. He also expressed frustration at the issues he had with logging repairs. It is possible that the resident was without a functioning door for around 7 months. This was an unreasonable delay and would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  8. In its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024 the landlord said the front door was the resident’s responsibility to repair as a homeowner. It did not address the failed repair on 25 July 2023. It did not address the repairs conducted on 20 February 2024. The landlord did not use its complaint handling effectively to respond to the substantive issues. It did not put things right and it did not learn from outcomes.
  9. The resident uses an intercom system to control entry to his front door. The intercom services his property only and does not affect any common parts. However, it does affect the front door which is part of the retained property. Additionally, the resident states that the landlord installed the intercom prior to his purchase using the right to buy. Throughout its correspondence with the resident, the landlord maintained that the intercom is the resident’s responsibility. The resident reported that it was difficult for his carers to access the property due to the intercom fault. Despite this, the landlord has not evidenced that it applied any discretion or consulted the terms of the lease to assess whether the intercom effectively formed part of the door furniture. The landlord’s approach was therefore unreasonable.
  10. The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door, windows, and intercom. The landlord was contradictory in its approach to each of these repairs. It attended to some repairs, but not others. It failed to consider the impact its alterations to the windows had on the resident. It did not ensure that the property was secure. It did not use its complaint handling to consider the resident’s concerns that it did not conduct any repair on 25 July 2023. The landlord should inspect the property to ensure that the front door is secure and that the resident can open and close his windows. It should review its approach to reasonable adjustments and set out its repair responsibilities regarding the resident’s lease. It should pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Concerns raised about the maintenance/upkeep of communal areas

  1. Throughout the timeline, the resident raised concerns regarding the maintenance of the communal gardens. In his complaint to the landlord on 20 September 2022 he said the estate was “full of rubbish”. He said the contractor who attended made a mess and damaged his plant pots. The landlord addressed some of these concerns in its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022.
  2. The landlord’s explanation regarding the increased amounts of litter on the estate was acceptable. It appropriately recognised that it had missed some estate visits in January, April, and May 2022. Its decision to credit £54.48 on 16 August 2022 to his service charge account was reasonable. However, it did not acknowledge or resolve the complaint about damage done to his plant pots at stage 1. This caused the resident additional time and trouble to pursue his complaint.
  3. In the same complaint on 20 September 2022 the resident said a communal pedestrian gate was not locking properly. The landlord acknowledged the report in its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022 and appropriately offered to inspect the gates. However, it gave no timeframe for when this would happen. It should have been clearer in its response and agreed to provide feedback to the resident following its visit. This caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint.
  4. In his request to escalate his complaint on 13 October 2022 the resident disputed the landlord’s chronology of events. He said the landlord had not removed some rubbish and disagreed with the landlord’s assertion that the standard of grounds maintenance was good. He referred to a letter to him from the landlord sent in July 2022. It said the ground was not in a good condition and it was chasing the works with its contractors. He also said he did not receive any credits to his service charge account.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 response on 27 February 2023 appropriately addressed the damage reported on 20 September 2022. Its offer of £30 compensation for the damage caused was reasonable. It also addressed the service level issues it had with its contractor. Its offer to review and calculate any service charge refunds at the end of the financial year was an acceptable means to put things right.
  6. The landlord also appropriately addressed the resident’s concerns about the misuse of the communal gardens and parking areas. It described finding no substantial evidence of misuse of the communal areas by other residents during its inspections. It had sought to resolve the substantive issues by fixing the pedestrian gates. Its offer to conduct further inspections to ensure the gates were working properly was fair. Its decision to erect new signage to discourage residents from blocking the communal car park gates, or parking in a way that would prevent access was reasonable. Its expectation that residents would resolve the issues with toys in the communal gardens themselves was acceptable. Also, its request for additional evidence of misuse of the gardens was reasonable.
  7. In the resident’s second complaint on 19 October 2023, he said the communal hedges and gardens were untidy. The landlord’s internal records show that it conducts quarterly estate inspections. Its has provided copies to the Ombudsman of its inspections between July and October 2023. Its records show that it cleared rubbish in July, August, and September 2023. However, the landlord did not address this in its complaint responses on 10 January or 18 March 2024. It should have used its complaint handling to resolve the substantive issues for the resident. It could have allayed some of his concerns and provided evidence that it was taking action to keep the estate clean and tidy.
  8. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the maintenance/upkeep of communal areas. The landlord addressed many of the resident’s concerns from his complaints in September and October 2022. Its offer of £30 compensation for the damaged pot and to refund the service charges for missed estate visits were reasonable. Nevertheless, it should have been clearer with the timescales involved for future inspections of the communal areas.
  9. The Ombudsman has accepted that it made orders on 28 September 2023 for the landlord to conduct a clean up of the estate. However, the landlord failed to use its complaint handling to address the complaint from 19 October 2023. The landlord should maintain its commitments and refund the service charges as set out at stage 2 on 27 February 2023. It should pay the resident additional compensation of £50 for his time and trouble. We have made no additional orders for an inspection or clean up of the estate to prevent duplication of our previous orders in 2023.

Record keeping

  1. It is important for the landlord to have systems in place to maintain accurate records. The resident informed the landlord that his name changed in July 2022. The landlord should have followed up this report and confirmed that it had updated its records within a reasonable period. It did not and this caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint on 20 September 2022.
  2. The landlord did not demonstrate any learning from the resident’s complaint in its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022. It said that it found the resident’s email informing it of his change of name but that there were no documents attached to the request. It was reasonable to ask for evidence from the resident. However, it should have reflected on the errors and apologised for not seeking these documents sooner. It did not consider the resident’s time and trouble or the inconvenience caused.
  3. The landlord’s poor record keeping impacted the resident again in September 2023. It is unclear from the evidence available to the Ombudsman if or why the resident’s date of birth in the landlord’s records changed. There is no record that any investigation was done by the landlord to demonstrate any learning from these changes. The alterations caused the resident difficulty logging repairs and contacting the landlord by phone.
  4. The landlord appropriately apologised for the poor record keeping in its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024. Its offer of £150 for its service failure and distress and inconvenience combined was reasonable. However, it did not set out its understanding of the cause for the change in its records. It did not demonstrate any learning from outcomes. It could have resolved the inaccuracies in its records by calling the resident itself. Instead, it required the resident to take additional time and trouble calling it.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024 the landlord appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint about its record keeping. Its apology for the error was fair. Its offer of £250 for its service failure, distress and inconvenience, and record keeping were reasonable. However, again it required the resident to call in so that it could update its records.
  6. The Ombudsman finds that there was service failure in respect of the concerns raised about its record keeping. The landlord’s responses in January and March 2024 were reasonable. It provided acceptable compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor record keeping. However, it did not appropriately consider the time and trouble caused to the resident in its responses in September 2022 and February 2023. The landlord should reflect on its methods of communication and consider ways to maintain its records which cause less inconvenience to the resident. It should contact the resident to confirm it holds his correct name and date of birth.

Service charge enquiries

  1. The landlord’s correspondence with the resident regarding his service charges was at times contradictory. The resident disputed the landlord’s decision to charge him for various services in his complaints on 27 July and 19 October 2023. Amongst the charges disputed by the resident were those for the removal of a satellite dish and maintenance of a communal TV aerial. The landlord did not address these complaints until it issued its stage 2 response on 11 March 2024. This was around 8 months later. The landlord did not apologise for this delay or put things right in the circumstances.
  2. The landlord’s internal records on 17 November 2023 show that it determined there was no communal aerial and should remove the charge. It added a credit of £61.10 to his service charge account on 15 January 2024. On 28 February 2024 the landlord said that it refunded the costs to remove the satellite dish. However, it said that the TV aerial was communal and would remain on the service charge account. Its records were contradictory and caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
  3. In its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024, the landlord said there was a communal TV aerial. This statement contradicted an email it sent to the resident on 6 March 2024. The landlord had said that it had removed the TV aerial charge for 2022-2023 because the aerial was not communal but serviced 1 property. It had changed the end of year balance from a £28.70 surplus to a £61.10 surplus on his account on 15 January 2024.
  4. The Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of service charge enquiries. There was a failure to address the resident’s complaint at stage 1. The landlord did not use its complaint handling to reflect on this failure at stage 2. There were contradictions in the correspondence sent to the resident by the landlord. The contradictions would have been confusing and caused the resident distress and inconvenience. The landlord should provide a breakdown of the service charges to the resident from 2022 to 2024. It should include an explanation of what charges are for removal of a satellite dish and what are for any communal TV aerial. It should pay the resident £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy states that it will record an expression of dissatisfaction about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action as a complaint. It is important for the landlord to ensure that it maintains its complaint handling commitments, and that it complies with the timeframes set out in its policy. Some of its response to the resident’s complaints were outside those timeframes.
  2. The landlord did not record the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction 7 February 2022 as a complaint. In his communication with the landlord, he said that he was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of his reports and he would be making a formal complaint. The landlord should have acknowledged the complaint and issued a stage 1 response within 10 working days.
  3. The resident said he was escalating his complaint about the landlord’s handling of his reports of ASB on 20 September 2022. The landlord responded to this complaint at stage 1 on 27 September 2022. Although the response was issued within 5 working days of his escalation request, it did not address his concerns about its complaint handling delays. It did say that it was escalating his complaint to stage 2.
  4. Despite agreeing to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 27 September 2022, the landlord did not issue its response until 27 February 2023. This was around 5 months later. The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its stage 2 response. It did not put things right in the circumstances and it did not learn from its complaint handling failures.
  5. The resident made 2 further complaints in 2023. The records show that he made a new complaint on 27 July 2023, which he reiterated on 19 October 2023 when he had no response. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 November 2023, which was around 3 months later. In its acknowledgement it said there would be a delay to issue its response. It is acceptable to request an extension to offer a complaint response. Its offer of £300 compensation for the delays to issue its response was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
  6. The landlord then sent further holding letters on 6 November, 22 November, 13 December 2023, and 5 January 2024. It was positive that the landlord kept the resident informed. However, there was an unacceptable delay of around 5 months to issue its stage 1 response on 10 January 2024.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it clarified its position regarding service charges in November 2023. Despite this clarification, the landlord failed to provide a decision to the resident until January 2024. This part of the delay in its response was unreasonable. However, its offer of £50 compensation when combined with the £300 awarded in November 2023 was proportionate.
  8. The landlord re–offered the £50 for the delays in its stage 1 complaint response when it issued its stage 2 response on 18 March 2024. However, there was a missed opportunity to reflect on its complaint handling failures. It did not properly address the delays in its stage 1 response or set out any learning from outcomes.
  9. Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints. The landlord’s combined offer of £350 between November and January 2024 for its complaint handling delays at stage 1 was reasonable. However, it did not address the failure to record the resident’s initial complaint in February 2022 nor the delay in its stage 2 response in February 2023. Its failures caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing his complaint. It should pay the resident an additional £50 for its complaint handling failures. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front door, windows, and intercom.
    3. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about the maintenance/upkeep of communal areas.
    4. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of concerns raised about its record keeping.
    5. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of service charge enquiries.
    6. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
    1. Write to the resident to:
      1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report.
      2. Clearly set out its repair responsibilities for the property in accordance with the lease with particular focus on what the lease says about obligations for doors and windows.
      3. Provide a breakdown of the service charges to the resident from 2022 to 2024. It should include an explanation of what charges are for removal of a satellite dish and what are for any communal TV aerial.
    2. Pay the resident £1,350 compensation. It should deduct any payment already made through its complaint handling. This is comprised of:
      1. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of reports of ASB.
      2. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of repairs to the front door, windows, and intercom.
      3. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble caused in its handling of concerns about the maintenance/upkeep of communal areas.
      4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its record keeping failures.
      5. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused in its handling of service charge enquiries.
      6. £400 for its complaint handling failures.
    3. Inspect the property to ensure that the front door is secure and that the resident can open and close his windows.
    4. Contact the resident to confirm it holds his correct name and date of birth.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should share details of its estate inspection schedule with the resident.
  2. The landlord should review its approach to reasonable adjustments.
  3. The landlord should reflect on its methods of communication and consider ways to maintain its records which cause less inconvenience to the resident.