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

Plus Dane Housing Limited (202322644)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202322644

Plus Dane Housing Limited

27 May 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
    1. Access to the laundry room.
    2. The availability of the jet washer.
    3. The current and future use of the community centre.
    4. A lack of meetings and the refusal of suggestions for using communal areas.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The landlord is a housing association. The building contains a community centre and laundry facilities that are funded by a dowry.
  2. The resident experienced a leak caused by his washing machine on 18 July 2023. He needed to use the communal laundry facilities but was unable to obtain the keys to the laundry room. The landlord advised it would ask the residents association to give the keys to the resident, but he still did not get access to the laundry.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 23 July 2023. He said he asked 2 keyholders for access to the laundry room and they both denied access. He said he felt other residents had priority and he had to use a launderette costing £17. He had previously asked to use the communal jet washer, but it had been given to a non-resident. He also said the landlord was underutilising the community centre and wanted it used more productively. In addition, there had not been an annual general meeting (AGM) held since 2017.
  4. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 15 August 2023. It apologised that accessing the laundry services was difficult and provided details relating to the use of the communal facilities. It offered to reimburse the £17 launderette cost as goodwill. In addition, it confirmed the residents association had arranged an AGM, and it would consult with residents how it could better utilise the community centre.
  5. The resident told the landlord on 30 August 2023 he was dissatisfied with the decision. He said he felt his issues had not been fully addressed. He explained he wanted the landlord to install a key safe so all residents had equal access to the laundry facilities. He also wanted the jet washer stored in the laundry room and wanted all his suggestions to be fully considered.
  6. The landlord provided its final response on 28 September 2023 and said it would raise the key safe suggestion at the AGM to consult all residents and vote on the matter. It said it did not interfere in the governance of the residents association but could provide advice and support when needed. It apologised it had not done more to encourage the residents association to arrange AGMs. In addition, it said it would put in place recommendations for more consultation with residents and the reintroduction of AGMs.
  7. When the resident contacted the Ombudsman, he wanted the landlord to get more involved in community activities. He also wanted the landlord to install a key safe for the laundry room, and to open the community room for all residents to use.

Assessment and findings

Access to the laundry room

  1. A housing action trust set up a dowry trust agreement with the previous landlord on 1 July 2005. Provision of the community centre was a legal requirement set out in the dowry trust agreement when previous blocks were demolished. The dowry was set up to fund the community centre and communal facilities for the residents. A compact agreement set out that the residents association would be responsible for managing the community centre and facilities. A community centre management agreement states the residents association is the body responsible for the day to day running of the centre.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023. He told it the keyholder for the laundry room would not give him the keys. The landlord said it would contact the housing officer to see if it could assist. It was reasonable for the landlord to try to assist the resident.
  3. The landlord telephoned the resident the next day and asked if he had obtained the keys. He told it he had still not gained access to the laundry room. It said it would try to contact the resident with the keys directly and ask them to provide access.
  4. When the resident raised a complaint on 23 July 2023, he said he had asked the keyholder for the laundry keys, but they told him they could not say when the keys would be available. He said he also asked the second keyholder, who did not provide the keys. As the residents association is responsible for managing the communal facilities, it appears the resident’s dissatisfaction was more with the residents association than the landlord. However, the landlord attempted to help him obtain the keys.
  5. In its stage 1 complaint response of 15 August 2023, the landlord explained the laundry services were already in use when the resident wanted the keys. It also said very few residents use the laundry facilities, so no formal arrangement was in place, but the residents association had an agreement to review laundry access if demand increased. The landlord confirmed it would put more information on message boards and send leaflets to residents about how to access the laundry facilities. In addition, it offered to reimburse the £17 launderette costs the resident incurred.
  6. The landlord then sent a notice to all residents on 25 August 2023 that confirmed there was a laundry service at the centre open to all residents. It explained they needed to contact either the chairperson or co-chairperson of the residents association to book and arrange access.
  7. We also note an AGM took place on 28 September 2023 where it was voted on and agreed that the system for running the laundry worked well and residents should continue to contact the chairperson or co-chairperson to arrange access. It was voted on and agreed that a key safe for access would not be suitable as there were health and safety issues around uncontrolled access.
  8. In summary, the landlord is not responsible for arranging access to the laundry facilities. The responsibility lies with the residents association. However, the landlord tried to assist the resident with gaining access. It also offered to cover the launderette costs and ensured it communicated how to arrange access to the laundry facilities. In addition, it submitted the resident’s suggestion for a key safe to the residents association to discuss and vote on.
  9. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there was there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about access to the laundry room.

Availability of the jet washer

  1. In the resident’s complaint of 23 July 2023, he said he had previously asked to use the communal jet washer. It is unclear exactly when that was. He said the jet washer was not available to use as the chairperson of the residents association had given it to a family member, who was not a resident, to take home with them.
  2. The residents association is responsible for managing the communal facilities. When the resident told the landlord about this matter, it confirmed in its stage 1 response that the jet washer belonged to the residents association. However, it said it would tell them it should only be made available for residents to use, which was a reasonable action.
  3. The landlord is not responsible for the jet washer. The responsibility lies with the residents association. However, the landlord took action to assist the resident in response to his complaint. We have not found any failings by the landlord in this matter.

Use of the community centre

  1. The community centre management agreement states the residents association is the body responsible for the day to day running of the centre, and how to spend the dowry lies with the residents association in consultation with the landlord. It also states it is the responsibility of the residents association to develop community activities. It is the landlord’s responsibility to consider proposals from the residents association for the annual review of activities.
  2. In the resident’s complaint, he said the landlord was underutilising the community centre and he wanted it used more often and more productively. In the landlord’s stage 1 response it confirmed the community centre was used for a weekly coffee morning and meetings with residents amongst other things. It also said it would ask at the AGM how it could utilise the community centre better going forward, which was a reasonable response.
  3. On 25 August 2023 the landlord sent a notice to all residents inviting them to an AGM on 28 September 2023. It also said there would be an opportunity at the AGM for residents to give ideas for events or activities for the community centre. Its engagement team also attended the building on 13 September 2023 to survey all residents about the future use of the community room.
  4. At the AGM on 28 September 2023, it was noted by the residents association the landlord had supported the activities in the centre including the Jubilee and Christmas events, exercise classes, and providing plants. The residents association also noted there had not been many activities due to low demand and low attendance. It was agreed to start some further activities based on residents’ suggestions and monitor attendance.
  5. Again, although the running of the community centre is not the landlord’s responsibility, it took positive action to try to facilitate its better usage. It surveyed residents about its use, and also ensured activities were discussed at the AGM. It is our view the landlord acted appropriately once the resident raised concerns and there were no failings in its response.

Lack of meetings and the refusal of suggestions for using communal areas

  1. The dowry trust agreement says the landlord is responsible for calling, advertising and organising an AGM each year with the trustees and the residents. At the AGM the annual accounts should be distributed and discussed, and it should allow the residents to raise any material issues in relation to the community facilities.
  2. The community centre management agreement states there will be an annual meeting to approve a budget and business plan for the centre. The residents association will hold regular AGMs and will also annually review and agree dowry investments and plan for future expenditure. It also states it is the landlord’s responsibility to provide training, advice and support to the residents association’s management committee.
  3. A residents meeting was held in the community centre on 17 October 2022, where a number of suggestions were put forward for the use of the community centre. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said an AGM took place in 2018 then got paused due to COVID-19 and an AGM had been planned for September 2023. It also said it would ensure there was an increased oversight of frequency of AGMs.
  4. With regards to refusing suggestions for using the community centre, the landlord’s engagement team attended the building on 13 September 2023 to survey all residents about the future use of the community room. It then provided the responses to be discussed at the AGM.
  5. In the landlord’s stage 2 response it stated it was unsure why no meeting took place in 2019. It confirmed COVID-19 restrictions prevented meetings in 2020 and 2021, but it was again unsure why no meeting took place in 2022. As stated above, the evidence shows a meeting did take place on 17 October 2022, so it is disappointing the landlord did not confirm that.
  6. The landlord also said it did not have a legal responsibility to ensure meetings took place, but it could have done more to encourage the residents association to arrange meetings. It apologised for any impact and said it would put in place recommendations for more consultation with residents and the introduction of AGMs.
  7. As evidence shows an AGM took place in 2018 and 2022, and COVID-19 prevented AGMs in 2020 and 2021, it appears the only AGM missed was in 2019. As the landlord is responsible to call, advertise and organise an AGM each year, that was a failing.
  8. At the AGM of 28 September 2023 all suggestions for the use of the community centre put forward by all residents, including the suggestion of a key safe for the laundry room were discussed and voted on.
  9. In summary the landlord failed to ensure AGMs took place each year in line with the dowry trust agreement. However, when the resident raised this issue, it immediately took steps to arrange an AGM and apologised for any impact. It also surveyed all residents about the usage of the community centre and ensured all suggestions were discussed and voted on by the at the AGM. We consider that to be a reasonable and suitable response from the landlord.
  10. For the reasons set out above, the Ombudsman considers the landlord has sufficiently addressed the matter. The apology and action it took adequately resolved its handling of the resident’s concerns about a lack of meetings and the refusal of suggestions for using communal areas.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme:
    1. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about access to the laundry room.
    2. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the availability of the jet washer.
    3. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the current and future use of the community centre.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a lack of meetings and the refusal of suggestions for using communal areas.