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

Peabody Trust (202111835)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111835

Peabody Trust

19 June 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 the resident’s reports of:
    1. a roof leak;
    2. car park maintenance issues.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor of a low-rise block served by a communal car park.
  2. The lease sets out the covenants of the leaseholder and landlord. The leaseholder’s covenants include paying a service charge to the landlord and giving it notice of any defect or want of repair in the building or common parts. The landlord’s covenants include maintaining (or procuring maintenance of) the common parts. Appended to the lease, and referred to within it, is a plan showing allocation of parking spaces to each of the 9 flats in the block.
  3. Prior to the events of this investigation, the resident had made reports and complaints to the landlord regarding maintenance of the block and car park. She first asked for parking spaces to be labelled with flat numbers in August 2021.
  4. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported a roof leak affecting her kitchen. The landlord raised a repair on 17 November 2022 and informed the resident that it had done so on 24 November 2022. Its contractor booked the repair for 9 January 2023, but did not attend. The resident contacted the contractor and was told that it had the wrong phone number for the occupant of the flat above (whose property gave access to the leaking roof terrace). After the resident followed this up, the appointment was rebooked for 16 February 2023.
  5. On 15 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about its delayed repair of the roof leak and lack of action to address car park maintenance issues. These issues included painting of parking bay numbers, weeds, litter, and moss in some areas of the car park. By way of resolution, she said she would like the works to be completed and a partial refund of her service charge.
  6. The landlord logged the complaint on 18 January 2023 and made attempts to contact the resident the same day. Following further attempts on 23 January 2023, it spoke to her on 30 January 2023 and 7 February 2023. The resident informed the landlord that she was not available on 16 February 2023 when the rescheduled roof repair was due to take place. It advised that it did not anticipate this would be an issue, but it would check.
  7. On 16 February 2023 the landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the roof. The contractor also completed high pressure jetting to a drain and gully in the car park on 21 February 2023, which removed weeds and moss.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 23 February 2023. This stated that:
    1. Having checked its repair and contact records, it could see the resident had been trying to raise some of the car park issues for over a year. It apologised for the breakdown in communication and inconvenience caused.
    2. It understood from speaking to the resident that despite the car park issues being marked as completed on its system, only 1 of 4 requested jobs had been carried out. Lines had been painted to mark the car park bays, but flat numbers had not been painted on the spaces, a ‘no parking’ sign had not been installed, and moss, weeds and mould had not been removed.
    3. Its stage 1 responder had managed the resident’s expectations as they were not sure the landlord would agree to carry out all of the works requested. However, they agreed to raise the request on the resident’s behalf. The resident had advised that a contractor had previously carried out jet washes to address issues with moss, but she felt this needed to be completed regularly to maintain the car park.
    4. It noted that the resident preferred communication by email.
    5. After it raised an order for car park works on 7 February 2023, this was amended to “drain jetting required to clear moss and weeds”. The jetting was appointed on 8 February 2023 and carried out on 21 February 2023.
    6. The roof repair was assigned to its contractor on 21 November 2022, but cancelled on 9 January 2023. It did not appear to have taken any action to rearrange the repair until the resident contacted it on 13 February 2023. The job was subsequently rebooked on 30 January 2023 and carried out on 16 February 2023.
    7. Its contractor’s notes from the job stated that it had removed concrete slabs and insulation from the roof terrace, cleared and dried the surface underneath, filled cracks in chemical resin, and replaced the slabs. It had also cleared a gully that was blocked with moss, sealed gaps around a nearby door frame and window, and replaced wooden cladding that had been out of place. However, the notes stated: “Unfortunately [the resident] was not home, so it couldn’t be seen where the leak originated from.”
    8. It offered the resident £250 for the poor customer experience she had had and the time and trouble taken to resolve the issue. If she accepted this, it asked her to complete an attached compensation form by 9 March 2023.
    9. If the resident was dissatisfied, it invited her to contact its stage 1 responder to discuss her concerns. If a resolution could still not be reached, she could request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord regarding its stage 1 response on 27 February 2023. She noted that there was no compensation form attached, and asked what would happen regarding the outstanding works if she accepted the compensation offered. After receiving no reply, the resident contacted the landlord again on 9, 16 and 22 March 2023. On 16 March 2023 she referred to escalating her complaint.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 May 2023 and its stage 1 responder replied on 26 May 2023. They asked the resident to confirm what she remained dissatisfied with and what outcome she sought. The resident responded with details of outstanding works on 31 May 2023. She told the landlord she wanted an update on the works and a list of dates its contractor had visited to carry out maintenance to the car park in 2022 and 2023.
  11. On 1 June 2023 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint following a request from this Service. On 2 June 2023 it carried out an inspection of the car park. It also tried to contact the resident by phone on 2, 5 and 8 June 2023 but did not get through. It then issued its stage 2 response on 8 June 2023, stating:
    1. It recognised that there had been delays in completing works. It also accepted that the resident’s complaint should have been escalated following her contact on 16 March 2023. It apologised for the inconvenience caused.
    2. Its landscape delivery team had carried out a site visit on 2 June 2023. Their report confirmed that there was no current moss build-up in the car park. Shrub bed and border maintenance – including weeding, pruning and tidiness – was found to meet specification. It had addressed the weed issue by carrying out a chemical application to hard surfaces.
    3. The landscape delivery team’s report did not identify any health and safety concerns or any damp, but it asked the resident to provide photos of the area in question if she disagreed that this issue was resolved. It would then review this further and offer an additional remedy if applicable.
    4. It noted that the car park spaces had not yet been painted with flat numbers and a ‘no parking’ sign was not in place. It appreciated that the resident had previously raised these issues and it apologised that it had not kept her updated. It would seek further clarification and provide a further response regarding these matters on 16 June 2023. It would also aim to provide details of gardening attendance.
    5. While the roof leak had been resolved, it accepted that there had been delays in progressing this matter. This had been addressed with its contractors. If the resident had experienced any further leak related issues, it asked her to let it know so that it could arrange prompt action.
    6. It acknowledged that it had further delayed in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint and escalation request. Since March 2023, it had put measures in place to improve its complaint handling, including restructuring its customer resolution team to include additional expert case handlers, administrative support and team leaders. It had also given internal feedback to improve the quality of its stage 1 complaint management and responses.
    7. It was also closely monitoring its repair and communal works to avoid recurrence of the issues experienced by the resident.
    8. It offered increased compensation of £860, comprising:
      1. £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience;
      2. £250 for its complaint handling failures;
      3. £10 for the missed appointment on 9 January 2023.
    9. It gave assurance that it would monitor all works until completion and provide a further response (and remedy, if appropriate) once the works were concluded.
  12. The resident replied to the landlord’s stage 2 responder on 9 June 2023. She then referred her complaint to this Service on 28 June 2023, noting that she received a holding email and extended response date from the stage 2 responder. However, the extended date of 26 June 2023 was not met.
  13. Following an interval of several months, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to carry out works to the “broken or damaged car park floor” on 1 March 2024. This was appointed but rearranged several times, with cancelled appointments on 4 March 2024, 11 April 2024 and 22 May 2024. On 24 May 2024 the contractor attended and sprayed the resident’s flat number on her parking space. She was unhappy with the quality of the work as the contractor did not use a stencil, and did not address the other outstanding issues in the car park.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. More recent issues reported and/or complained about by the resident, such as an intercom issue and concerns about the level of service charge, fall outside the scope of the current investigation. This is because they were not raised by the resident in her complaint in January 2023 or addressed by the landlord in its responses in February and June 2023. The resident has the option of referring any more recent complaints to this Service for separate investigation, once they have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
  2. A decoration issue raised by the resident in her stage 1 complaint, which was not subsequently escalated to stage 2, has also not been considered in this investigation.

Roof leak

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its target timescales for different types of repair for which it is responsible. It will attend out-of-hours emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. It aims to respond to specialist works within 60 calendar days, although its average timescale for such works at the time of the resident’s complaint was 33 days. It categorises specialist works as those which are complex in nature and require a specialist contractor and/or a technical lead.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may make awards of up to £650 for the time, trouble and inconvenience associated with a service failure, depending on the level of disruption. It will also pay £10 for each appointment missed by its contractor.
  3. At 9.45pm on 16 November 2022 (a Wednesday), the resident reported a “significant leak” into her kitchen which was “dripping directly through the lights/electrics and needs urgent assistance”. She reported this using the landlord’s online repair reporting form, although it offered a telephone service for reporting emergency repairs. Despite the fact that the resident did not use this service, the landlord should have identified the repair as a potential emergency the following day and attended within 24 hours to assess the leak and make it safe (if necessary). Its failure to acknowledge the resident’s report of an urgent situation until 8 days later was unacceptable. There is also no evidence that the landlord satisfied itself the resident’s property and communal area were safe within a reasonable time, which is a further cause for concern.
  4. When the landlord did respond, it informed the resident on 24 November 2022 that the works were classed as a specialist repair with a maximum completion time of 60 days. As a result of communication issues associated with the repair, it was in fact completed 92 days later (on 16 February 2023). This exceeded the maximum completion timeframe by more than a month, and was 3 times the average timeframe of 33 days that the landlord led the resident to expect. The Ombudsman considers the length of the delay to be excessive, particularly given the nature of the repair and the concern it would have caused to the resident over a 13-week period.
  5. There were further communication issues in relation to whether the resident needed to be present for the repair. She had originally taken time off work in order to be present for the appointment on 9 January 2023, and it was appropriate for the landlord to later offer its usual rate of £10 for this missed appointment. The resident then informed the landlord and its contractor on at least 5 occasions that she was unavailable on the rearranged date of 16 February 2023. The landlord advised that it did not anticipate this being an issue, but said it would check; however, there is no evidence that it did so or replied to the resident on this point. This was unsatisfactory, and would have caused the resident avoidable worry and uncertainty. It is fortunate that the leak appeared to be resolved by the repair carried out on 16 February 2023, but this would not have been immediately apparent and the resident likely experienced prolonged anxiety while waiting to see if the leak recurred.
  6. Related to the communication issues was the resident’s request for communication by email. Following a phone conversation on 30 January 2023, the landlord documented that the resident preferred email communication due to her work commitments. It also documented her request for its stage 1 responder’s email address. Despite this, it did not provide the relevant email address until 7 February 2023, and continued to contact the resident by phone. It attempted to call her on at least 5 occasions between 7 February 2023 and 8 June 2023. While it did sometimes respond by email, and left voicemails when it called and was unable to speak to the resident (as she asked), there is limited evidence that the landlord took the resident’s contact preferences and circumstances into account when updating her. At times this resulted in updates being delayed or opportunities for clarification being missed. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a tailored and flexible approach to contact and to accommodate residents’ requests and preferences where reasonably possible.
  7. With regard to compensation, it is difficult to assess the adequacy of the stage 1 offer of £250 as no breakdown was provided. At stage 2, the landlord rightly offered £10 for a missed appointment as discussed above, and it also offered £600 for time, trouble and inconvenience. It said this was the maximum award permitted by its compensation policy. This was inaccurate, as the compensation policy provides for awards of up to £650. In addition, the £600 covered the time, trouble and inconvenience of 2 separate service failures – delays in resolving the roof leak and delays in responding to the resident’s reports of car park maintenance issues – which amounted to a lower award for each. For the purposes of this investigation, since the £600 was not further broken down, it is assumed that £300 was awarded for each failure. This corresponds with an award for ‘moderate disruption’ according to the landlord’s tariff. While the landlord may have reasonably concluded that this level of award was appropriate, it was misleading of it to suggest that it had awarded the maximum amount. It would also be good practice for it to demonstrate how it had assessed the level of impact and effort for each failure.
  8. A finding of maladministration has been made due to the landlord’s delayed assessment and completion of the leak repair, poor communication, and confusing information regarding compensation. While the Ombudsman considers the excessive delay in assessing a repair of this type to be serious, a finding of severe maladministration has been avoided as a result of the landlord’s repeated apologies, evidence of learning (including feedback to its contractor), and offer of financial redress.

Car park maintenance issues

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy confirms that it has a general responsibility to maintain common areas where it is the freeholder. It commits to ensuring communal areas are safe and secure for residents, and to completing repairs according to its specified priorities and timescales. Its target timescale for ‘next available’ repairs – defined as “non-urgent repairs required to rectify a fault” – is 28 calendar days, with an average completion time of 10 working days.
  2. The landlord states in its estate management policy that it aims to provide clean, safe, tidy, and well-managed neighbourhoods. It achieves this aim through dedicated programmes including estate inspections, reactive repairs, cyclical repairs and neighbourhood improvements. It also reviews contractor performance and engages with residents to highlight areas for improvement. It will respond to all non-emergency reports requiring unscheduled work within 5 working days.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may provide a full or partial refund for service charges paid for a specific service if there is evidence that it did not provide the service as expected. In September 2021, the landlord previously refunded the resident some of her service charge as it could not verify that adequate grounds maintenance services were delivered in 2017-18. In this instance it agreed to her request of clearing her arrears of £64.79.

Moss, weeds and litter

  1. While the focus of this investigation is on more recent events, the Ombudsman notes that there is a history of the resident reporting grounds maintenance issues dating back to 2017, with previous involvement by this Service in 2021. On 27 August 2021 – following a conversation with the landlord on 18 August 2021 – the resident asked it who was responsible for dealing with litter, weeds, and general upkeep of the car park area. She also asked how often these matters should be attended to and how reported issues would be resolved. This communication referred to a record by the landlord of such issues being reported in July 2020 and closed in 2021. The resident went on to forward emails from 2018, which she said showed “the buck being passed between departments and nobody actually attending to the issues”. In September 2021, the landlord offered redress to reflect the fact that it could not verify an adequate grounds maintenance service was provided. It therefore had an opportunity to learn from its failure and ensure its service delivery was improved going forward.
  2. While the landlord demonstrated an appropriate level of transparency by providing details of its grounds maintenance contactor and the frequency of their visits, it did not do so until 19 October 2021. This followed a chase email by the resident on 6 October 2021. Its delay of over 7 weeks in providing this straightforward information was unsatisfactory, and no doubt further undermined the resident’s confidence in its ability to resolve her concerns.
  3. It is unclear whether the resident received the landlord’s email on 19 October 2021, as she repeated her questions on 9 November 2021. It would have been good practice for the landlord to forward its previous email and confirm that the resident was happy with its answers to her questions. However, there is no evidence that it did so, which may have been a factor in the resident’s subsequent complaint on 19 December 2021.
  4. In this complaint, the resident again referred to issues with moss and litter/rubbish. She asked the landlord to power hose the moss. The landlord advised on 21 December 2021 that it had arranged for its estates services team to deal with the litter and moss; while the speed of this response was appropriate, it did not commit to any specific course of action (such as power hosing) or arrange for its estates services team to update the resident. This resulted in the resident sending further emails on 31 January 2022 and 17 February 2022. The latter of these stated that “none of the outside has had any attention in the last 20 years”, with “weeds only cleared when persistently requested”. The landlord therefore had a further opportunity to review its grounds maintenance service and inform the resident of action it had taken, but apparently omitted to do so.
  5. Nearly a year later, the resident’s complaint of 15 January 2023 referred to “weeds on stones front and back” and “litter not picked up during weekly visits”. The landlord appeared to gain a good understanding of the resident’s concerns during a phone conversation on 30 January 2023, following which it noted “the cleaner does work inside but the external works are neglected” and “there is an area of the car park that is a bit mossy and it seems there may be a leak … this area is rendered useless as nobody wants to park near a muddy puddle”. It then acted reasonably by raising car park repairs on 7 February 2023, which included works to address “moss, weeds and mould growing at front and back of car park”. It is unclear why it took 6 working days to raise the repairs, but given the non-urgent nature of the works, this timescale was not excessive.
  6. It later became apparent that at some point between the repair being raised and the works being completed, the description of the repair was altered on the landlord’s system. The revised description stated “drain jetting required” and “moss weeds growing at front back of car park, please attend to clear”. The landlord’s contractor carried out high pressure jetting to the land drain and gully on 21 February 2023, documenting afterwards that “all [was] free flowing with no weeds/moss remaining”. However, the contractor appeared to disregard the second part of the revised repair description, and did not address the moss and weeds growing in other areas of the car park.
  7. As a result, on 27 February 2023, the resident asked for an update regarding power hosing of other weeds and moss. When this was not forthcoming, she chased the matter further on 4 occasions between 9 March 2023 and 22 May 2023. Following a reply from the landlord on 26 May 2023, she confirmed that the car park works relating to moss, weeds and mould remained outstanding on 31 May 2023. She also requested a list of gardening/maintenance attendance dates in 2022 and 2023. In response, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out a grounds maintenance inspection on 2 June 2023. This addressed the weeds, moss and litter issues. The landlord found that no moss was present at the time (likely due to the time of year), treated weeds, and cleared litter. While this course of action was appropriate, the evidence provided indicates that the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the inspection was lacking.
  8. In its stage 2 response on 8 June 2023, the landlord provided appropriate reassurance regarding the matters addressed during its inspection and confirmed that it did not identify any damp or health and safety issues. It was reasonable for it to give the resident the opportunity to provide photos of the affected area if she disagreed that the damp issue was resolved, and to commit to conducting further investigation and considering additional redress if applicable. However, though it said it would provide a further response and would aim to provide details regarding gardening attendances, it apparently did not do so. The resident informed this Service in June 2024 that she had not received a further update or list of attendances in 2022 and 2023, which was unsatisfactory. An order has been made to address this.

Parking issues

  1. According to the documentation provided, the resident first asked for the block’s parking spaces to be labelled with flat numbers on 27 August 2021. This was due to another resident parking outside of their bay and preventing others from using their spaces. The resident requested that the landlord send a letter to the resident in question, and also a general letter to all residents about considerate parking. She also asked for “painted numerical spaces”. Following a further email from the resident on 6 October 2021, the landlord told her on 19 October 2021 that it would send a letter to all residents “advising them to park inside of the parking bays” by 26 October 2021. However, it also said on this date that parking bays were not allocated to individual properties on the scheme as far as it was aware. In response, the resident forwarded a copy of the designated parking layout (included within her lease) on 22 October 2021. There is no evidence that the landlord acknowledged and apologised for its error, or that it clarified its intentions having inspected the designated layout.
  2. The landlord apparently did not send a letter to residents by 26 October 2021, as the resident queried this on 9 November 2021. Its omission to follow through with a course of action it had committed to taking, or otherwise to update the resident, was unacceptable. The resident’s subsequent complaint of 19 December 2021 contained a repeated request for flat numbers to be painted on parking spaces and letters sent to residents. On 21 December 2021 the landlord advised that the painting of bay numbers had been raised with its estates services team, and that its neighbourhood manager had been made aware of the parking issues. However, as with the car park maintenance issues discussed above, it did not commit to specific actions or make arrangements for the resident to receive an update from the relevant team or officer. This was unsatisfactory, particularly in view of the resident’s obvious frustration.
  3. Following a further delay of over a month, the resident chased the landlord on 31 January 2022, and it replied on 10 February 2022 that numbering of bays was a chargeable service and it would need confirmation that all residents were willing to pay. It asked the resident to confirm whether she wished to proceed to consultation. Though the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with this, noting on 17 February 2022 that marking of bays “should be standard” and that the works could be completed at the same time as repainting of the lines between bays, the matter was apparently not progressed further at the time. The landlord could have been proactive in contacting residents about parking issues (as it had previously said it would do) and seeking feedback on possible solutions. Instead it put obstacles in the way of resolving the issue, such as putting the onus on the resident to confirm if she wished to proceed to consultation, which had the effect of unnecessarily prolonging her distress.
  4. The resident’s complaint on 15 January 2023 followed an incident where a neighbour crashed into her car in the car park. The landlord subsequently repainted the lines between bays, which the resident had identified as requiring completion in February 2022. This action was appropriate, though delayed.
  5. On 7 February 2023 the landlord also raised jobs for “flat numbers to be placed on the car park spaces” and installation of a “no parking sign where people park”, without any reference to the works being chargeable or a consultation. This appeared a positive and solution-focused approach to a long-standing issue. However, its stage 1 response on 23 February 2023 indicated that although it had raised these jobs, it may not complete them. The response stated that its stage 1 responder had “managed [the resident’s expectations] regarding the works [she] requested to the car park as I advised I was not sure [the landlord] would carry out all the works, however I was happy to raise the request on [her] behalf”. Though raising a request on the resident’s behalf was helpful, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord did not do enough to resolve the matter at stage 1. It could have liaised with relevant team(s) to establish what it was or was not able to do, explored any alternative options, and given a definitive answer to the resident, rather than unfairly raising her hopes and leaving the matter unresolved.
  6. The stage 1 response also acknowledged the fact that the description of the repair raised had been altered on its system, but did not address this. The original repair included the items “flat numbers to be painted” and “no parking sign”. However, the revised description referred only to drain jetting, moss and weeds. If this change in description meant that the landlord had decided not to carry out the bay numbering and sign installation, this was not made clear.
  7. Due to the apparent lack of resolution, the resident requested an update on the outstanding car park works on 5 occasions between 27 February 2023 and 22 May 2023. Following the landlord’s reply on 26 May 2023, she repeated her request for completion of outstanding works on 31 May 2023. During a grounds maintenance inspection on 2 June 2023, the landlord missed an opportunity to review the parking situation and possibly discuss it in person with the resident. The matter was therefore not addressed again until 8 June 2023, when it issued its stage 2 response, but once more did not present its position clearly or confirm whether it did or did not agree to complete the requested works. Though it rightly recognised its delays and apologised for the lack of updates, it again deferred resolution of the issue by promising a further response.
  8. According to the resident, the further response was not provided by the specified date, and no update or explanation was provided. This was unsatisfactory. The landlord did not then take any action until 11 months later – on 24 May 2024 – when its contractor sprayed a freehand flat number on the resident’s parking bay only. This appointment followed at least 3 cancelled appointments, and the resident was not informed what works would be completed during the contractor’s attendance or whether she needed to be at home (in order to move her vehicle). It is the Ombudsman’s view that this overly delayed and disorganised response – which may have been influenced by this Service’s request for an update on 21 May 2024 – constituted a deeply insufficient resolution of an issue that had caused the resident distress and inconvenience for almost 3 years.

Request for service charge refund

  1. The Ombudsman notes that the resident requested a partial refund of her service charge in connection with the substandard car park maintenance service she felt she had received. Her reasons for requesting this are understandable, as the landlord had previously agreed to a service charge refund in similar circumstances. The landlord’s response to the resident’s more recent request, in which it advised her to speak to its finance department, was unhelpful. As the resident highlighted herself, it appeared that “no one is taking responsibility to sort this out, sending me from one department to another” – a theme she had identified before in 2018 and 2021. The Ombudsman expects landlords to take a holistic approach to complaints and other issues and to liaise internally where appropriate in order to conduct a thorough and exhaustive investigation.
  2. On this occasion, the Ombudsman does not find that it is appropriate for the landlord to refund the resident’s service charge or arrears payments by way of compensation. This is because it is difficult to assess, on the basis of the information supplied, the extent to which paid-for services were delivered or not delivered across a period of years. Instead an award has been made that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constitutes proportionate redress for the distress and inconvenience caused, taking the full circumstances of the case into account.

Summary

  1. A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of car park maintenance issues. This is due to its delays, poor communication, failure to complete promised actions, and overall lack of ownership of the issues which prevented their effective resolution. Orders have been made both to address the outstanding maintenance issues and to put things right for the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will log complaints within 5 working days. It will then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 20 working days at stage 2. These timeframes may be extended if it needs more time to investigate fully, and if this happens, it will agree the extension with the complainant.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy provides for awards of between £25 and £300 for complaint handling failures, depending on the severity of the failure.
  3. It is unclear why the landlord did not receive and/or log the resident’s complaint until 18 January 2023, as she submitted it using an online contact form at 9.12pm on 15 January 2023 (a Sunday). The landlord made attempts to contact the resident by phone on 18 and 23 January 2023. This was reasonable, as the resident had not yet informed it of her preference for email contact. While it is good practice for landlords to acknowledge complaints in writing, the landlord’s complaints policy does not state that it will do this. However, when it was unable to contact the resident by phone within its policy timeframe of 5 working days, it would have been appropriate for it to send an email acknowledgement on or before 25 January 2023. It would have been in a position to do this as the resident had provided an email address as part of her complaint; she had also chosen email or online methods to report other matters such as the roof leak, as discussed above.
  4. The landlord went on to acknowledge the complaint verbally and introduce its stage 1 responder during a phone call on 30 January 2023. This was evidently a productive conversation during which it established the key points of the complaint and listened to the resident’s concerns. It then issued its stage 1 response 18 working days later, on 23 February 2023. As this timeframe exceeded the 10 working days set out in its complaints policy, the landlord should have informed the resident of its need for more time and agreed an extension with her. Its delayed response, without explanation, may have caused the resident some concern. However, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord was in communication with the resident about aspects of her complaint on 7 and 9 February 2023, and that the delayed response did not cause her significant additional detriment. It would nevertheless have been reasonable for it to acknowledge and apologise for the delay within its stage 1 response.
  5. While the stage 1 response was detailed and provided a useful summary of events, it did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, such as her request for a partial refund of her service charge. It did, however, demonstrate transparency by quoting its repair records and explaining how a job had been described on its system. It also gave an appropriate level of assurance that it had taken steps to prevent some of the reported issues from recurring.
  6. From the documentation inspected, it appears that the resident was satisfied with the resolution proposed at stage 1 and may not have escalated her complaint if the landlord had responded to her email of 27 February 2023. At this point she simply sought a missing compensation form and assurance that the landlord would continue to oversee the outstanding maintenance works. Unfortunately, it failed to reply to 3 emails she sent on 27 February 2023, 9 March 2023, and 16 March 2023. In the last of these the resident enquired about escalation. The lack of response led the resident to call the landlord on 22 March 2023 and send a further email on 22 May 2023. The landlord’s delay of 3 months in responding was unsatisfactory. By this time, the resident had understandably lost confidence in its commitment or ability to resolve the reported issues. The explanation provided by the stage 1 responder on 26 May 2023 – that they had been working in a different part of the business since March 2023 – was inadequate and indicated a lack of effective mechanism for managing such situations.
  7. Even following its reply on 26 May 2023, the landlord did not immediately accept the resident’s escalation request, which it later agreed it should have done. This necessitated involvement by this Service on 1 June 2023. Once the landlord confirmed escalation of the complaint, it responded by its stated deadline of 8 June 2023, which was satisfactory.
  8. The stage 2 response was again thorough. It gave assurance that the landlord had carried out appropriate investigation, such as liaising with relevant staff and reviewing records in conjunction with its policies. It also addressed all of the points it committed to address at the outset. While it was unable to resolve some aspects of the complaint – possibly because of its accelerated response timeframe of 5 working days – it was appropriate for it to commit to provide an update by a specified date. This aligned with the approach set out in this Service’s complaint handling code. However, the resident later advised that the landlord did not update her by 16 June 2023 as it said it would, or by its extended date of 26 June 2023, which was inadequate. It therefore missed a further opportunity to resolve the complaint to the resident’s satisfaction and prevent escalation to this Service.
  9. Taking all of the above into account, a finding of reasonable redress has been made. This is because, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £250 reflected the complaint-specific failures identified above. The award was in line with the highest category of ‘severe failure’ for complaint handling set out in its compensation policy. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay the resident the £250 it offered, if it has not already done so.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a roof leak;
    2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of car park maintenance issues.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in handling her reports of a roof leak and car park maintenance issues.
    2. Pay the resident £1,250, comprising:
      1. £400 for its delays and poor communication in relation to her reports of a leak;
      2. £650 for its delayed, inadequate and evasive response to her reports of car park maintenance issues (between the time she raised the issue and the time of its stage 2 response);
      3. £200 for its continued delays and poor communication since the time of its stage 2 response.
    3. Ensure that the resident’s preference for communication via email is documented on its records, and confirm this to her.
    4. Provide to the resident details of attendances by its car park maintenance contractor in 2022, 2023, and 2024. If some of this information is not available, it should inform the resident of this and the reason why. It should also advise her of her right to inspect and take copies of its accounts, receipts and documents relating to service charges within a specified period under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should include details of how she can exercise this right and local arrangements for inspecting invoices (for example, attending its offices at a particular address, and any cost for making copies).
    5. Carry out jet washing and/or other necessary works to remove any moss from the car park (if currently present). It should then ensure arrangements are in place to monitor moss growth and remove any further moss at appropriate intervals. If it finds that moss is developing at a faster rate than expected, it should investigate the cause of this. It should inform the resident in writing of its plan of action to tackle this issue, including the proposed frequency of moss assessment and removal.
    6. Send all residents of the block a letter reminding them to park considerately and fully within their allocated space, and not to use additional spaces or unmarked areas of the car park. It should enclose a copy of the car park layout (as attached to the resident’s lease).
  2. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to paint numbers in front of all designated car park bays (so that the number is visible when a vehicle is parked in the space) at no cost to residents. It should give residents advance notice of the repair date and employ a qualified contractor to carry out the painting using an appropriate stencil. It should also remove the existing freehand number from inside the resident’s bay.
  3. On the basis of any response to its letter about car parking, and any further incidents of obstructive parking reported by the resident, the landlord should then consider installing a ‘no parking’ sign to address parking outside of marked bays. It should inform the resident and this Service of its decision within 12 weeks of the date of this report.
  4. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timeframes stated.

Recommendations

  1. In addition to the £1,250 ordered above, it is recommended that the landlord pays the resident the £250 it previously offered in relation to complaint handling. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £860 offered in its stage 2 complaint response, this should be deducted from the total of £1,500, meaning that the difference of £640 is now due.