Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202319996)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319996

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

31 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. queries about landscaping works.
2. request for noise disturbance compensation.
3. concerns about water meter access.
4. concerns about cladding works.
5. concerns about communications.
6. reports of a leaking balcony.
7. reports of dogs residing in the building.
8. concerns about the cleanliness, maintenance and security of the communal areas.
9. request for a dry riser to be relocated.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder. She bought the property as a new build in 2005. The property is a ground floor flat within a block of flats (the building).
In 2012 a subsidiary company of the landlord and a delivery partner formed a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). The LLP was established to deliver a large regeneration scheme involving the construction of new homes, community facilities, retail space, a public park and a town square. The resident’s building fell within the boundary of the scheme. Improvements to communal areas outside the building, including green areas, paths and the car park, were included in the landscaping designs. These designs received planning permission in 2015 and work around the vicinity of the building began shortly after.
In 2021 the landlord told residents that it intended to replace the timber cladding and timber balcony decking throughout the building with non-combustible material. This was on the advice of fire engineers and was not connected with the regeneration works. The landlord instructed a contractor to carry out the work which began in 2022 and was completed in early 2023.
On 14 March 2023 the resident sent the landlord a formal complaint. The complaint consisted of a list of 28 issues that affected the resident and 2 of her neighbours to varying degrees. The issues directly affecting the resident included:
1. concerns that the landscaping works had not been finished in a particular area. She asked the landlord to clarify who was paying for the works.
2. the disturbance caused to her while the regeneration works were ongoing, particularly due to noise. She asked the landlord to pay her compensation.
3. that she was unable to have access to water meter readings for 6 years due to the regeneration works.
4. that the landlord had not completed the cladding on the lower walls of the building.
5. dissatisfaction with communications from the landlord, its delivery partner and the cladding contractor. She was particularly unhappy that they did not always notify her in advance when works were due to take place.
6. that the balcony above her garden was leaking.
7. concerns that other residents were keeping dogs in the building contrary to their lease, and that the dogs were causing a nuisance.
8. various concerns about the cleanliness, maintenance and security of the communal areas.
9. a request for a dry riser within the resident’s garden to be relocated.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 28 March 2023. It said:
1. landscaping completion works would take place in May and June 2023.
2. no compensation would be paid to residents due to the regeneration works.
3. it was sorry to hear of her concerns about the water meter readings. It had brought this to the attention of management for further investigation.
4. a fire engineer had signed off the cladding works but it would carry out a further inspection to ensure all required works had been completed.
5. it was sorry if it had not informed the resident in advance of any works. If she provided specific examples, it would investigate these.
6. it would inspect the leaking balcony.
7. its antisocial behaviour (ASB) team would investigate the concerns about dogs and would take appropriate action.
8. its estates services team would contact her and take further action in relation to the cleanliness, maintenance and security issues reported.
9. the relocation of the dry riser was under review.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 30 March 2023. Within her escalation request she explained why she remained unhappy about the landlord’s stage 1 response to each issue. In relation to the cladding, she added that there was cracking on some panels. She sent the landlord an additional document on 20 April 2023 in which she set out the outcome and compensation she sought from the landlord for each complaint issue.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 5 May 2023. In the response it:
1. confirmed again that it expected to complete the landscaping works in May or June 2023. It confirmed that residents would not pay for the works but that once complete, it would recover ongoing maintenance costs through service charges.
2. said the delivery partner carried out the regeneration works in compliance with planning and environmental regulations and that it would not pay compensation for disturbance.
3. said that while access to water meters was unavailable for short periods during the regeneration works, there was generally access throughout the 6 year period the resident referred to in her complaint.
4. confirmed its contractor had correctly finished the cladding on the building. It committed to inspect the cracking that the resident reported in her escalation request.
5. explained that the delivery partner in the LLP was responsible for notifying residents about the landscaping works.
6. said that further to its recent inspection of the balcony, it would discuss the design of it with relevant colleagues and would then update her.
7. confirmed it had issued written warnings to relevant parties in relation to the dogs and that it would continue to monitor the situation.
8. outlined the various actions it had taken, or would take, in relation to cleaning, maintenance and security.
9. confirmed it would not move the dry riser.
The resident was not satisfied with the landlord’s stage 2 response. She referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She told us the outcome she sought was for the landlord to resolve all the issues she raised in her complaint.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident submitted her complaint on behalf of herself and 2 neighbours. Of the 28 issues listed in the complaint, 8 did not directly affect the resident. Of the 20 other issues, some affected all 3 parties, some the resident and 1 neighbour, and some only affected the resident.
Given all the issues did not affect all 3 individuals in the same way, it would not be appropriate for us to treat this case as a group complaint. We have therefore only included in our investigation the 20 complaint issues that directly affected the resident. We have consolidated these issues into the 9 complaint headings outlined in paragraph 1 above.
The neighbours may individually refer their complaints to us and ask us to investigate. The resident may share a copy of this report with them if she wishes.

Response to the resident’s queries about landscaping works

The resident said in her complaint of 14 March 2023 that a green space at the entrance to the development required levelling and turfing to match other green spaces in the area. She asked the landlord to clarify who was responsible for this and who would pay for it. She said residents should not have to bear the costs through their service charge.
In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed that the delivery partner intended to landscape the space. It said the work was scheduled to be completed in May or June 2023. It clarified in its stage 2 response that residents would not pay for the works but that once complete, it would recover ongoing maintenance costs through service charges.
Our remit is to investigate how the landlord responded to the complaint based on the facts known to it at the time of its response. When it issued its stage 2 response in May 2023, the landscaping works to the green space remained on track to complete later that month or the following month. The resident raised queries, rather than a complaint as such, about the green space. The landlord reasonably responded to those queries. We are therefore satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about landscaping works.
When the delivery partner started the landscaping work to the green space, it identified the area was contaminated Japanese knotweed. The landlord advised us that the green space was therefore cleared of weeds and undergrowth. It sent us photographic evidence of this. It explained that the full landscaping works to the space cannot be completed until the knotweed is eradicated. That treatment is currently ongoing.
The resident recently advised us that contractors have disposed of construction materials in the green space. She sent us photographic evidence of this. She said the landlord has told residents it will bill them through their service charge for the clearance of this area.
The events the resident is concerned about took place after the complaints procedure was exhausted. We are therefore unable to consider this as part of our investigation
If the resident has reported the construction material issue to the landlord and is unhappy with its response, she may raise a new complaint with it about this. If she is concerned about unfair service charges, she may refer the matter to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The Tribunal, rather than the Ombudsman, is the appropriate authority for determining liability to pay and the reasonableness of service charges.

Response to the resident’s request for noise disturbance compensation

In her complaint of 14 March 2023 the resident asked the landlord for compensation for noise disturbance due to the regeneration works that began in 2015. She said the noise levels were at times “painful” and that she was disturbed by noise from the ongoing regeneration works at a community centre within the development.
The resident clarified in her escalation correspondence that she sought £1,000 compensation. She said this was for disturbance caused by both the regeneration work and the cladding work. She said the landlord failed to provide daily readings of the noise levels while the cladding work was ongoing. She asked it to provide these as part of its stage 2 response.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said:
1. it would not pay compensation for noise disturbance.
2. the regeneration work was carried out during times permitted by the planning consent and within environmental guidelines in terms of levels.
3. the cladding work was of a “relatively short duration” and was carried out in normal working hours. Only hand tools were used, most of which were battery operated. No excessive noise was generated.
4. it was not obliged to take or provide noise level readings during the cladding work.
We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s request for compensation due to noise. She said in her escalation request that she and her 2 neighbours had “previously provided [the landlord] with more than enough evidence to show we were disturbed from 2015 – 2022”. She referred to specific incidents involving the 2 neighbours but provided no supporting evidence to show that she had previously reported noise concerns to the landlord while the regeneration or cladding work was ongoing. She did not indicate if she ever reported her concerns to the environmental health department of the local authority. This is the authority responsible for investigating noise complaints. We have seen no evidence that the local authority raised any concerns with the landlord regarding noise from either an environmental or planning perspective.
The Ombudsman therefore finds that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for noise disturbance compensation. There was insufficient evidence provided in the resident’s complaint correspondence upon which the landlord should reasonably have considered the compensation claims further or referred them to its relevant legal or insurance teams.

Response to the resident’s concerns about water meter access

The resident said in her complaint of 14 March 2023 that the delivery partner carrying out the regeneration works was unable to give her water meter readings for 6 years. In her escalation request she said that she wanted compensation for a lack of access to the water meter from 2015 to 2022.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was, “not clear on what basis compensation is due in relation to this point”. It stated, “whilst access to water meters was unavailable for short periods, due to specific works in their vicinity, there was generally access throughout. During the periods when access was not available, residents were at liberty to arrange readings via the delivery team.”
This was a limited response to the resident’s complaint. There was no recognition by the landlord that the resident had raised concerns with it in an email on 20 November 2022 about access to the water meter. Within this she said she had been unable to take an accurate meter reading since 2015. She outlined her concerns that the water company was overcharging her as a result. We have seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this email in writing. It does however appear to have spoken to the resident about it as she later referred to the discussion in her escalation correspondence.
In her escalation correspondence of 20 April 2023, the resident said she now had access to the water meter. She explained that in the previous 6 months when she had no-access, the landlord assured her that it would secure her access but failed to do so. She said she asked it for readings before a cut-off date in order that she could provide these to the water company, but she received the readings after the cut-off date. She explained that as a result of the water company overcharging her, she suffered financial hardship. The water company had since returned some funds as a credit on her account but would not return any interest charged on the overpayments. She asked the landlord to pay her £600 compensation.
It is understandable that due to the major works the delivery partner was carrying out in the area, this would at times mean access to certain areas of the development would be limited. That the resident was unable to access the water meter at times is not in itself a failure by the landlord or something that it should reasonably have to compensate residents for.
While it was accurate for the landlord to point out in its stage 2 response that the resident could have reported access issues to the delivery partner, her contractual relationship is with the landlord. Therefore, if the resident reported access issues to the landlord, we would expect it to raise these with the delivery partner and ensure that either it granted her access or provided her with timely readings. We have seen evidence that the resident was unhappy the landlord was not doing this in late 2022. She raised this again in her escalation correspondence. The landlord failed to address this in its stage 2 response.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about water meter access. This is because the evidence suggests that the landlord did not ensure in late 2022 that the resident was provided with timely readings. It failed to review this during its complaint investigations and did not address it in its complaint responses.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this service failure. We are unclear what the resident’s request for £600 compensation was based on. We understand from her correspondence to the landlord of 20 April 2023 that the water company refunded her the overpayment. She was unhappy that she still had to pay interest on the overpayment. However, we are satisfied that the £100 compensation we have ordered will likely offset any interest she paid.

Response to the resident’s concerns about cladding works

The landlord has provided us with evidence that it held a meeting with residents of the building prior to the cladding works commenced. It then wrote to them a number of times to provide updates about the work. The cladding contractor also wrote to residents prior to the work starting. Within the letter it provided contact details so that residents could get in touch should they require any further information. The landlord told us that at no stage before or during the works did the resident raise any concerns with it or the contractor about the cladding. She did not suggest she had previously reported any concerns about cladding in her complaint correspondence. Therefore her stage 1 complaint of 14 March 2023 appears to be the first time the resident reported her concerns to the landlord.
In her complaint the resident stated that there were “unfinished cladding works to the lower walls”. The landlord advised the resident in its stage 1 response that a fire engineer had inspected and signed off the works. It said that given her concerns, it would arrange a further inspection. This was a good response. Rather than dismiss the resident’s concerns on the basis that a professional had signed the work off, it took them seriously and arranged a further inspection.
The landlord sent a surveyor to inspect the cladding on 29 March 2023 which was the day after it issued its stage 1 response. The landlord was satisfied based on the inspection findings that it had completed the cladding work to specification. It had never intended to fit the cladding down to ground level, which was the resident’s concern. It advised her it was satisfied with the finish of the cladding in its stage 2 response.
In her escalation request, the resident reported that there was cracking in some panels of the cladding. She said she pointed these out to the surveyor when he attended on 29 March 2023 and that he took photographs. In its stage 2 response the landlord said the “small board crack” had been “raised as a defect with the original installer” and would be replaced. It confirmed to us that following further investigations, it determined that it was not a “crack” but a “small split” which was an intended feature of the imitation timber boarding. It said, “no defect was present”.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cladding works. A fire engineer signed off the works. In doing so the engineer inspected the cladding against current building and fire safety legislation before confirming they were satisfied with the finish. Upon hearing the resident’s concerns, the landlord carried out an inspection to satisfy itself that it had finished the work to the correct specification. This was an appropriate response.
In September 2024 the resident told the landlord that the cladding was allowing rodents to access the building. This falls outside the scope of this investigation given it arose over a year after the landlord issued its stage 2 response. The resident told us that the landlord carried out an inspection and took action to address the rodent issue. If she has any further concerns about the cladding, she should continue to report these to the landlord. It should continue to take these seriously and respond appropriately.

Response to the resident’s concerns about communications

Under the contractual arrangements for the regeneration works, the delivery partner was responsible for carrying out the works and communicating with affected residents. In relation to the landscaping works that took place around the resident’s building, the delivery partner was contractually required to:
1. take measures where possible to reduce the potential negative impact of the works on residents.
2. notify residents prior to the works commencing.
3. provide residents with regular updates via newsletters. The landlord provided us with examples of some of the newsletters that were sent to residents. The newsletters provided construction updates and included contractor contact details.
4. investigate and deal with any complaints “positively and promptly”.
5. provide company and site specific contact details, including out of hours, at the front of the site.
Given the extent and duration of the planned major works, it was unavoidable that there would be some disruption to residents living in the vicinity. It was not possible for the landlord to oversee every single communication the delivery partner had with residents. It was reasonable for it to rely on the delivery partner to fulfil the contractual obligations. However, the resident’s contractual relationship was with the landlord, not the delivery partner. Therefore, if she raised concerns with the landlord about the delivery partner’s communications, the landlord should have investigated and responded to these concerns promptly.
In relation to the cladding, the landlord instructed a contractor to carry out the work. The landlord was responsible for the performance management of the contractor. As with the regeneration works, if the resident raised concerns with it about the cladding contractor, it should have investigated and responded to these concerns promptly.
The resident said in her complaint of 14 March 2023 that the landlord:
1. never gave 10 working days’ notice when it required access.
2. issued notice after works had started.
3. provided last minute updates on when it would close access to paths or the green area, which made accessing parking a problem.
Although the resident did not specify it in her complaint, our understanding from the evidence and from speaking to her is that these complaint issues related to both the cladding and regeneration works. The regeneration works meant that from April 2017 to the date of the complaint, there was restricted access to paths around the building. The cladding contractor required access to the gardens of ground floor flats, including the resident’s property, while carrying out works.
In its stage 1 response the landlord:
1. apologised if works had taken place where residents had not been informed in advance.
2. said that while every effort would be made to give advance notice, there would be occasions when access was required at short notice to properties and it was not possible to give 10 working days’ notice.
3. said that if the resident provided specific examples of where there had been a failure in communication, it would investigate.
This was a reasonable response as the resident had not provided details of any specific incident within her complaint.
In her escalation correspondence the resident referred to an incident earlier in 2023 when the delivery partner closed access to a pathway. She said:
1. the landlord failed to put signage in place to notify residents 10 working days in advance of the access being blocked. Residents received no other notice of the works.
2. it caused a “great deal of inconvenience” as it was the “main route out of the building”.
3. it meant that she was unable to receive deliveries or post.
4. she reported the problems caused by the lack of notice to the landlord “a number of times”. The landlord then wrote to residents about the access restrictions but this was 14 days after the access was blocked.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that its delivery partner for the regeneration works was “responsible for notification and had carried out a door knock for all residents in [the building], but some residents were not in”. It said that it issued the letter “out of courtesy” when the resident complained to say she had not received notice. It said that while “written confirmation would have been preferrable alongside door-knocking, [it] did not accept that 10 working days’ notice in writing was required in relation to these works”.
It is evident that the landlord did take some action, by writing to residents, when the resident raised concerns with it in early 2023 about the path closure. However, it did not acknowledge in its stage 2 response that it took 14 days to do so. In its response it distanced itself from any obligations in relation to communications by suggesting it was the delivery partner’s responsibility and referring to the letter it sent as a “courtesy”. It provided no indication as to whether it had consulted with the delivery partner about its communications, and offered no assurance as to how it would ensure resident notification was improved in the future. This was a missed opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it had taken her concerns seriously.
Overall, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about communications. She provided information in her escalation request about a specific incident where a pathway was closed and she explained the inconvenience this caused her. The landlord demonstrated limited accountability for its communication responsibilities in its response. While the resident would still have been inconvenienced by the path closure even if advance notice was given, the landlord demonstrated no empathy in its response for the impact the closure had on her.
In line with our remedies guidance, we order the landlord to pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure.

Response to the resident’s reports of a leaking balcony

The resident said in her complaint of 14 March 2023 that water was leaking through gaps in the balcony above her garden. The floor of the balcony was changed from timber to non-combustible material during the cladding works. The resident has explained to us that the leaking only began after the flooring was replaced.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response, issued on 28 March 2023, that a surveyor would attend the property the following day to inspect the balcony. This was a reasonable timeframe for a response and in keeping with its repairs policy which states it will aim to respond to reports of non-emergency repairs within 10 working days.
The surveyor duly attended on 29 March 2023 and inspected the balcony. He found that the balcony by design had no drainage. This meant that in heavy rain, water from the balcony may drop down to the property below. The surveyor discussed his findings with the resident during the inspection and during a return visit to the property on 27 April 2023. He told her he would discuss the matter further with colleagues in the development department. The landlord told the resident in its stage 2 response that it would provide her with an update following those discussions.
We are unclear whether the landlord provided the resident with an update following its internal discussion with colleagues. However it explained to us that the open design of the balcony existed from the day the property was built. Its view was that the pre-existing design, rather than the new flooring, caused the water to drip in heavy rain. It said “no defect” existed in the balcony and indicated it had no plans to carry out any works to change the design.
We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leaking balcony. We have seen no evidence that she reported her concerns to the landlord prior to submitting her complaint. Once the landlord received the complaint, it inspected the balcony within an appropriate timeframe. It was reasonable for it to rely upon the findings of a professional officer that there were no faults with the balcony and that by design it may leak when it rained. Unless a statutory reason existed, as was the case with the balcony flooring, it was under no obligation to change the open design which had existed since the property was first built in 2005.

Response to the resident’s reports of dogs residing in the building

The resident’s lease contains covenants that require her:
1. not to cause a nuisance or annoyance to any neighbours.
2. to do such things as the landlord may require her to for the safety, orderliness or cleanliness of the building and communal areas.
3. not to keep any pets in her property or the building “other than with the written permission of the landlord”. This is a mutual covenant.
The landlord is able to act against the resident, and other shared owners and leaseholders in the building with the same lease, if they are not complying with the above covenants. In relation to the mutual covenant about pets, the lease requires the landlord to enforce this against others holding the same lease if asked to do so by the resident. The lease states it may recover costs and expenses from the resident of any such enforcement.
In her complaint of 14 March 2023 the resident stated there was an outstanding issue with dogs in the building. She said the dogs were unleashed, barking and fouling on the communal carpets.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response, issued on 28 March 2023, that it had passed this information to its ASB team who would investigate in more detail and take appropriate action. This was a reasonable response given the resident had at that stage reported her concerns about the dogs but had not outlined a specific complaint about the landlord’s response.
The landlord opened an ASB enforcement file on 27 March 2023. It spoke to the resident on 29 March 2023 and asked her to confirm which flats the dogs were residing in. She confirmed she was aware of a large dog in one flat, and a large dog and 2 smaller dogs in another. Both flats were owned by leaseholders and were occupied by tenants of the leaseholders.
The landlord then sent warning letters to the leaseholders of both flats on 5 April 2023. The letters stated that it had received complaints about dogs “roaming around the block unleashed” and that there had been an increase in dog fouling and loud barking. The landlord asked in the letter to speak with the leaseholders.
This was an appropriate initial response to the reported ASB issues. It was in keeping with the landlord’s ASB policy which requires it to speak to the complainant about their concerns and to carry out a proportionate investigation. Rather than move straight to formal action, it was a reasonable first step to contact the leaseholders and give them an opportunity to respond and put a stop to the ASB.
There is, however, no evidence that the landlord at this initial stage considered whether it had granted permission for the tenants to keep dogs. We understand that the leaseholders of both flats held leases containing the same covenants as the resident’s lease. It therefore would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider all aspects of compliance, not just ASB, particularly as the resident had asked it to in her escalation request on 30 March 2023. She said in her escalation request that the landlord was “failing to enforce the lease provisions” that stated pets were not permitted without permission. She asked it to enforce this.
On 12 April 2023 the resident emailed the enforcement team directly and explained her concerns about the dogs. She said 2 of the dogs were very large and asked if the landlord had identified what breed they were. She said she and other neighbours were afraid of them as they were “aggressive”. She was disturbed by noise due as the dogs were “constantly barking”. She asked the landlord again to enforce the lease provision about keeping pets.
The enforcement team responded to the resident’s email the following day. It advised her it had issued the warning letters. It suggested she waited a few days to see if there were any improvements in the situation. This was a reasonable suggestion in relation to the ASB issues such as fouling and noise. However, the landlord failed to respond to her queries about the breed of dogs and whether it had granted permission for them to be kept as required by the lease. This was unreasonable.
The enforcement team emailed the resident on 27 April 2023. It explained that it had warned both leaseholders that the dog ASB had to stop. The landlord further advised the resident in its stage 2 response, issued on 5 May 2023, that:
1. it had invited one leaseholder to interview as they did not respond to the letter.
2. the other leaseholder had responded to the letter and said they would speak to their tenants.
3. it would “continue to monitor the situation to see what impact the warnings have had”.
Although the landlord had made some attempts to address the ASB by contacting the leaseholders, it failed to respond to the resident’s concerns about the breed of the dogs and lease compliance. There is no evidence in its records that by the date of the stage 2 response it had:
1. reviewed whether it had granted permission for any of the dogs to be kept in the flats.
2. considered whether, if there was no permission, it should grant it.
3. made any enquiries into the breed of the dogs, particularly whether they were a legal breed. It the landlord felt that this was something it did not need to explore at that point in time, then it should reasonably have said so. It was not appropriate to leave the resident’s questions unanswered.
4. visited the building to inspect the reported ASB issues, such as dog fouling, or carried out any other form of investigation beyond writing to the leaseholders. This was despite its records indicating that on 17 April 2023 it received complaints from “more residents” about the dogs. That should reasonably have prompted the landlord to take further investigative steps.
Given this, we find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dogs residing in the building. In line with our remedies guidance, we order it to pay the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience this caused.
The landlord’s tenancy policy sets out rules requiring pet owners to clean up after pets, keep them securely and so on. It states that the number and type of pets that tenants may keep should be appropriate to the size of the property and will be determined at the landlord’s “sole discretion”. We are not aware whether a similar policy exists for leaseholders or shared owners. Although it was tenants keeping dogs in this case, they were tenants of leaseholders. It is the leaseholders who have a contractual relationship with the landlord and who are responsible for ensuring their tenants adhere to covenants. Therefore only policies applicable to leaseholders are relevant in this case.
Even if the tenancy policy regarding pets was applicable to the leaseholders, the landlord does not appear to have any guidance in place setting out how it will exercise its discretion to grant permission. We have recommended that it considers its policy position further.
Following the stage 2 response in May 2023, the resident continued to regularly report concerns to the landlord about dogs in the building, including in a third flat. In late 2023 the landlord advised her that the leaseholder of one of the flats was in the process of evicting the tenant. In May 2024 it advised her that it had granted retrospective permission for dogs to be kept in the other 2 flats.
When we spoke to the resident earlier this month, she told us she was unhappy that the landlord granted permission for dogs to be kept in 2 of the flats. She said it was unable to explain to her what factors it considered when reaching that decision. She said it was unclear if the complaints from her and other neighbours had any influence over the decision. She said the fouling and noise was continuing and she remained concerned that some of the dogs were aggressive. She told us that the tenant from the other flat had not yet been evicted. She was unhappy that the landlord was relying on the eviction process, which was taking a long time, instead of taking any other action to address her concerns about the dog living there.
While we sympathise with the resident, we are unable to investigate the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the dogs from May 2023 onwards. This is because our investigation is focussed on how it responded to the complaint she made on 14 March 2023. We can only assess its stage 2 response of 5 May 2023 based on the circumstances known to it at the time, rather than events that occurred in the future. We are aware that given her continuing concerns about the dogs, the resident has made further formal complaints to the landlord. If the landlord has issued a stage 2 response to those complaints, she may refer them to us for investigation.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness, maintenance and security of the communal areas

The landlord is required by its lease with the resident to clean, maintain and keep in repair the communal areas and parts of the building. The resident pays a service charge for this.
In her list of issues submitted to the landlord as a complaint on 14 March 2023, the resident reported concerns about the following:
1. the cleanliness of doors.
2. damage and noise due to the direction a door opened.
3. missing door stoppers.
4. damp in a ceiling.
5. a fire exit door not closing.
6. security concerns due to the main doors being left open and other residents shouting out the access code.
7. that communal flooring and shoe wiping squares required replacement.
The resident did not indicate in her complaint correspondence if she had previously reported any of these issues to the landlord. We have seen no evidence, such as emails or records of phone calls, to suggest that she had. We have therefore assessed the landlord’s response to these cleaning, maintenance and security issues on the basis that it received the resident’s reports for the first time on 14 March 2023.
The fact that a maintenance issue has arisen or that cleaning could be improved does not automatically mean there has been service failure or maladministration by the landlord. These are issues that understandably arise when a landlord is managing a building. We assess the landlord based on how it responds once it becomes aware, or should reasonably have been expected to be aware, of such issues.
We have assessed the landlord’s response to each of the cleaning, maintenance and security issues reported by the resident on 14 March 2023.
The resident reported in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 that the cleaners in the building were not cleaning the doors. The landlord asked her during a site visit on 3 April 2023 to clarify which doors she was referring to. It then arranged for the doors to be cleaned. It acknowledged in its stage 2 response that the doors had not been “maintained to the expected cleaning standard”. It confirmed that its Estates Services Area Manager had carried out a post-cleaning inspection on 24 April 2023. It said it would monitor them in future to ensure a good standard of cleaning was maintained. We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s report about the doors.
The resident asked the landlord in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 to change the direction a door inside the building opened. She explained that it was banging on a wall when it opened, leaving marks on the wall and waking her if opened in the middle of the night. The landlord assessed this during a surveyor’s inspection on 29 March 2023. It decided not to change the direction of the door but ensured there was a door stopper in place to mitigate the noise and prevent further wall damage. It carried out work in May 2023 to fill in cracks and repair damage to the wall.
We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s request. While we understand she was disappointed the direction of the door was not changed, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon inspection findings when determining what action to take. She told us that despite the door stopper, the door is continuing to damage the wall and create noise when opened. It is unclear whether the resident has notified the landlord of this. If this continues to be an issue, the resident should make the landlord aware now so that it may explore solutions.
The resident reported in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 that door stoppers in the building were missing. The landlord investigated this during a surveyor’s inspection on 29 March 2023. It raised works orders and by the time of its stage 2 response on 5 May 2023, it had installed any missing door stoppers throughout the building. We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s report about the door stoppers.
The resident reported in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 that there was damp in an area of ceiling in the communal hallway due to a leak. The landlord assessed the ceiling during a surveyor’s inspection on 29 March 2023 and was satisfied the ceiling was no longer damp. It applied a mould wash and then repainted the affected area. It completed this work on 11 April 2023. Its surveyor checked the work was completed to a satisfactory standard and that there were no further signs of damp during a follow up inspection on 27 April 2023. We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the report about damp in the ceiling.
The resident asked the landlord in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 to install an overhead door closer on a fire exit door. She explained it was always being left open by other residents in the building which caused a draught and was a security issue. She said that this inconvenienced her as she was “forever having to go out to close the door”.
The landlord assessed the door during its inspection of the building on 27 April 2023. It determined that it would not be appropriate to install a closer on it given it was a fire exit. It advised the resident in its stage 2 response that it was satisfied the mechanisms of the door were in working order and a door closer was not required. We are satisfied that this was an appropriate response to the resident’s request, particularly as a fire exit may need to remain open in an emergency.
We note that within the stage 2 response, the landlord explained that a fire door within the communal hallway created a vacuum which could stop the fire exit door from closing. It said it was “actively investigating ways to resolve this issue without it affecting the integrity of the door”. We do not know what the outcome of the landlord’s further investigations into this issue were. We recommend that it writes to the resident and provides her with an update.
The resident reported in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 that 2 main exit doors to the building were sometimes left open. She said that residents were shouting out the access code and raised concerns about the security implications. She asked the landlord to write to residents in the building about this. She also asked it to remove a key safe from the communal area.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord issued a letter to its residents in the building. It said that residents should “always enter the access code to the front door inconspicuously, especially when they are in the company of a non-resident”. It said that “failure to do this could mean the security of the block is breached”.
We are satisfied that this was a reasonable response to the resident’s concerns about the security of the front door. She complained in her escalation request that the letter did not explicitly state “the code should not be shouted out”. However, we agree with the landlord’s analysis in its stage 2 response that the letter “covered the main issue raised”. By this date it had also removed the key safe as the resident had requested. We are therefore satisfied that it responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns about the security of the main doors.
The resident asked the landlord in her complaint correspondence on 14 March 2023 to:
1. replace the carpet in the communal area outside her flat with tiles. She said the carpet had been damaged by water penetration.
2. renew shoe wiping squares in the main entrance to the building.
The landlord assessed both these issues during a surveyor’s inspection on 29 March 2023. It advised the resident in its stage 2 response that it would replace the shoe wiping squares but that it would not replace the carpet outside her flat with tiles. It said it would clean the carpet instead. We are satisfied this was a reasonable response. The landlord demonstrated that it duly considered both requests. It was under no obligation to replace the carpet with tiles. Its record indicate that it followed through on the commitment to clean the carpet and did so on 13 June 2023. It advised us that carpets in the building are cleaned on an annual basis, or sooner if there is an immediate need. This is reasonable.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness, maintenance and security of the communal areas. We have reached this decision on the grounds that it:
1. arranged for a surveyor to inspect any repair issues on 29 March 2023. This was a reasonable timeframe for inspecting the repair issues reported by the resident on 14 March 2023 and was in keeping with its repairs policy.
2. arranged for a surveyor and an Estate Services Area Manager to attend a site visit with the resident on 3 April 2023 to discuss the cleaning, maintenance and security issues. This demonstrated it was taking the resident’s reports seriously and was trying to fully understand her concerns before completing its stage 2 complaint investigation.
3. completed any identified remedial action prior to or shortly after the stage 2 response was issued. Prior to issuing the stage 2 response, the surveyor and Estate Services Area Manager both carried out follow up inspections to check that any repair or cleaning works had been carried out to an adequate standard.
4. explained its position in relation to each issue, all of which were based upon inspection findings, in the stage 2 response.
5. committed in the stage 2 response to continue to monitor cleanliness in the building.
The resident told us that she continues to have a number of concerns regarding the condition of the communal parts of the building. Our investigation was limited to an assessment of how the landlord responded to the specific issues raised in her complaint of 14 March 2023. As explained, we are satisfied it responded appropriately to each issue based on the facts known to it at the time of its stage 2 response on 5 May 2023. The resident should report any continuing concerns she has to the landlord if she has not done so already. If she is unhappy with its response, she may raise a new complaint with it.

Response to the resident’s request for a dry riser to be relocated

A dry riser is located within the resident’s garden. It has been there since the property was built and her lease began in 2005.
A dry riser is designed to help firefighters easily access water on all floors and compartments during fire fighting emergencies. Given that this is a critical installation, the landlord and its contractors have periodically required access through the resident’s garden to service it. The resident explained to us that this has caused her inconvenience and there have been occasions in the past where operatives have entered her garden without advance notice. She complained to the landlord about this and it put a sign on her gate to say that nobody should enter her garden without prior permission. It confirmed to us that it also has a note on its system to remind it to seek permission before accessing the garden.
We do not know what dates the resident previously complained about unauthorised access or when the landlord installed the sign. The resident did not refer to any previous incidents of unauthorised access in her complaint of 14 March 2023. She simply asked the landlord to relocate the dry riser.
The landlord considered the resident’s request. It advised her in its stage 2 response that it “did not accept the dry riser needed to be moved, so long as sufficient notice is provided before any [landlord] employee or operative enters the area”.
We are satisfied that there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that the dry riser be relocated. It considered the request but was entitled to determine that the dry riser would not be moved. It has been located on the grounds of the property since the lease began. The landlord is not obliged to move it. The resident is required by the lease to grant the landlord and its contractors access to it provided they have given notice, although they are not required to give notice in the event of an emergency. The landlord has taken proactive steps through the signage and alert on its system to reduce the chances of unauthorised access to the garden. If further incidents of unauthorised access occur, the resident is entitled to submit a complaint about those individual incidents.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy provided that it would respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint 10 working days after it received the complaint. It issued the stage 2 complaint 24 working days after it received the escalation request. It advised the resident on the 19th working day that it required an extra week to complete its stage 2 investigation and collate its response. The resident expressed dissatisfaction at this extension.
The Code recognises that landlords may require extensions to complaint response deadlines depending on the complexity of the case. Given the volume of issues the landlord was investigating in this case, it was reasonable that it told the resident it required an extension. It proactively investigated, inspected, and collated its response during the 24 working days between the escalation request and its response. In other words, the delay was reasonable and was not caused by inaction.
In her complaint of 14 March 2023 the resident said that the landlord had “breached the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard”.
The Government introduced the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard (the Standard) in April 2017. It set expectations for registered providers of social housing to provide “choices, information and communication that is appropriate to the diverse needs of their tenants”. It required them to have an approach to complaints that was “clear, simple and accessible” and that ensured complaints were resolved “promptly, politely and fairly”. The Government replaced the Standard in April 2024 with the Transparency, Influence and Accountability Standard. This similarly requires social landlords to treat residents with fairness and respect.
In its stage 1 response the landlord asked the resident to clarify how she felt it had breached the Standard and how it could remedy this. In her escalation request she said there were too many incidents to detail them all, but provided the following as examples of when she felt the landlord had breached the Standard:
1. its “inability to consult on matters relating to changes to the major works schedule and the notification of access, changes etc.”
2. that it had sent the stage 1 response only to her and not the 2 neighbours who were joint complainants. The resident said it was “ignoring 2 of the 3 complainants” and expecting her “to do [the landlord’s] job” by requiring her to circulate it to the 2 neighbours.
3. that it had not responded to all the issues raised in her complaint.
In its stage 2 response the landlord did not directly address the resident’s comment that it had breached the Standard. It responded to her concerns about the notification of works, which we have assessed separately in the communications section above, but did not address her concerns about its complaint handling.
It is not within our remit to determine whether the landlord’s actions amounted to a breach of the Standard. However, we have held it accountable and assessed its response against its own complaints policy and the Code. The Code sets out best practice for complaint handling by social housing landlords. It is aligned to our dispute resolution principles which require landlords to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In relation to the resident’s concern that the landlord only issued the stage 1 response to her, we note that at stage 2 it issued its response to all 3 residents. It could reasonably have apologised in that response that it had not sent the stage 1 response to all of them or explained why it only sent it to the resident. It did not do so.
In relation to whether the landlord responded to all the complaint issues, we note at stage 1 that it did not respond to the resident’s query regarding who would pay for the landscaping works. However, it does appear to have responded to most other issues.
We understand the resident’s frustration that a number of the responses at stage 1 were in effect a holding response. For example, in relation to the cladding, balcony, cleanliness and maintenance issues, the landlord said it would carry out an inspection. We are satisfied however that this was a reasonable response given these issues were first reported on 14 March 2023. The landlord carried out its inspection on 29 March 2023 which was within a reasonable timeframe.
On other issues, such as communications, the landlord provided a general response at stage 1. However, that was because the resident had provided a list of issues that made a number of general statements, rather than detailing specific examples of incidents. The landlord reasonably said in the stage 1 response that if the resident provided details of specific incidents of communication failure, it would investigate. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was more thorough than the stage 1 response. As it had carried out 4 site visits by the time the response was issued, it was in a position to confirm its findings in relation to the cladding, balcony, dry riser, cleaning and maintenance issues.
As outlined in the assessment of each complaint issue in this report, we found that it provided a reasonable response at stage 2 to most issues. However, we found that it failed to fully address the complaints about the water meter, its communications and dogs. It also did not address the comments made by the resident in her escalation request about its complaint handling and that it had not met the Tenant Involvement and Empowerment Standard.
Overall, we find that there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. This is because it failed to address all aspects of the complaint, which is a Code requirement, in both complaint responses. In line with our remedies guidance, we order it to pay the resident £100 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s queries about landscaping works.
2. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for noise disturbance compensation.
3. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about water meter access.
4. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about cladding works.
5. service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about communications.
6. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of a leaking balcony.
7. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports of dogs residing in the building.
8. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s concerns about the cleanliness, maintenance and security of the communal areas.
9. no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for a dry riser to be relocated.
10. service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The apology should follow the best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
2. Pay the resident £600 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about water meter access.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its response to the resident’s concerns about communications.
  3. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the maladministration in its response to the resident’s reports of dogs residing in the building.
  4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the service failure in its complaint handling.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord considers introducing a policy or guidance setting out how it will exercise its discretion in cases where it may grant permission for a leaseholder or shared owner to keep pets. It may wish to include within this policy or guidance the circumstances in which permission will be refused or withdrawn and the extent to which complaints from other residents should influence its decision.
We recommend that the landlord writes to the resident and provides her with an update on its investigations into the vacuum created by an internal fire door, which was potentially causing a fire exit door not to close.