Redwing Living Limited (202319794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319794

Regenda Limited

7 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 concerns about:
1. the standard of window cleaning.
2. windows and door repairs.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a property. The landlord, a housing association, is the freeholder. The property is a flat within buildings made up of 19 flats. During the period in question the landlord provided window cleaning to the buildings, for which residents paid a service charge.
In March 2023 the resident told the landlord that he was withholding a payment for communal repairs for 2021/2022. He said he had asked to see invoices for each job and was still waiting for this.
Later in March 2023 the landlord provided the resident with information relating to the repairs completed 2021/2022. It said it was “comfortable” that these costs had been incurred in line with its responsibilities under the lease. At the end of March 2023, the resident expressed his ongoing concerns about the cost of the repairs and requested a meeting with the landlord.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord noted the resident had attended its offices and had raised a complaint. It recorded:
1. he said windows had not been cleaned for 18 months.
2. he wanted an explanation of the service charges.
3. he wanted an explanation of what repairs were covered under the lease.
The landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023. It said:
1. it had investigated historical window cleaning, and it had no record of any missed visits up to March 2022.
2. if the resident had any supporting evidence, it could investigate this matter further.
3. it was aware of multiple quality issues and missed appointments with window cleaning since April 2022 and it would not be recovering a service charge for the missed appointments. It said this would be reflected in the resident’s service charge bill for 2022/2023.
4. it noted that residents living on the estate had now opted out of the window cleaning contract.
The landlord said that when it had spoken to the resident on 5 April 2023 to acknowledge his complaint, he had raised concerns about:
1. work it had completed to overhaul double-glazed windows at the building.
2. front door repairs.
The landlord said that it had completed repairs to a window which would not open and was not functional. It said it had completed front door repairs following reports of problems with door frames. It said that in some cases this had meant locking mechanisms had also required repair. It said it considered this repair as part of the “external wood and woodwork iron work” under the lease.
It noted that the resident had requested these repairs be left to the individual leaseholders to complete. However, it directed him to the relevant section in his lease and said that repairs to windows and doors fell under its responsibilities in line with this.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord noted the resident had attended its office and had provided a list of 14 residents who said that windows had not been cleaned since October 2021. The landlord noted the resident attended its offices again on 24 April 2023 to escalate his complaint.
On 24 May 2023 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It noted it had met with him on 15 May 2023 to discuss his complaint and that it understood he considered its previous response did not address the lack of window cleaning in 2021/2022.
The landlord said it had no record of any missed window cleaning appointments being reported. However, it said:
1. the property manager in place at the time no longer worked for it.
2. it could not be “certain” about what residents had discussed with him directly given this.
3. as a gesture of goodwill, it would make a credit of £35 to each property in acknowledgment of the issues raised with window cleaning.
The resident told us his concerns were about the charge for window cleaning for the 6–month period between October 2021 and March 2022. He said that during that time there was no window cleaning, and he wanted the landlord to provide a full refund in respect of this. He said he also wanted the landlord to reimburse charges it had made for repairs to windows and doors in 2021/2022 as he considered these should not have been completed by it.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s lease with the landlord outlines that the landlord will keep in good and substantial repair the structure of the building, including:
1. the roofs, external walls, external wood and woodwork, window frames, ironwork, and the outside face of all external doors.
2. the resident will pay a service charge in respect of the landlord’s expenses, including the maintenance of the structure and exterior and common parts of the property.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it may consider awarding compensation where residents are impacted by failings in its service.
The landlord has a 2–stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and to those at stage 2 within 15 working days.

Scope of the investigation

We can consider complaints about the management of service charge accounts, standard of services provided and how the landlord handled enquiries relating to service charges. However, we cannot consider concerns about the level or reasonableness of the service charge.
Disputes about the level or reasonableness of service charges are outside the remit of the Ombudsman and are appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal (FTT). The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s interpretation of what repairs should be completed under the lease. The Ombudsman cannot make binding decisions about the interpretation of the wording of the lease. This would be more appropriately handled by a court of law. The resident may wish to seek legal advice on this matter.

The standard of window cleaning

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in March 2023 about the standard of window cleaning. He said this had not been completed in the period since October 2021. He said that he verbally raised issues about missed window cleaning with the property manager during this time.
The window cleaning contract outlined that windows should be cleaned 12 times a year, at monthly intervals. In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord said it had no record of any missed window cleaning visits up to March 2022. Records we have seen provide no information from the window cleaning contractor about its attendance at the property. However, the landlord provided a spreadsheet showing the dates its contractor completed window cleaning, and this shows no missed appointments between October 2021 and March 2022.
We have also seen the landlord’s property manager’s reports of the inspections of the estate’s communal areas during the period in question. These show details of 4 inspections completed by the property manager between October 2021 and March 2022. The property manager recorded that window cleaning was “compliant” during this period.
We note that the property manager’s inspection of June 2022 recorded residents wanted to terminate the window cleaning contract as soon as possible. However, we have seen no evidence that issues or concerns had been raised before that date. The property manager made note of “general comments” from resident in 3 inspection reports between October 2021 and March 2022, and these did not detail that any issues with window cleaning were reported.
In considering the resident’s complaint at stage 2, the landlord noted he wanted a refund for missed window cleaning during 2021/2022. It said that it had no record of missed window cleaning being reported. However, it said the property manager from the time no longer worked for it and so it could not be certain if issues had been discussed with him direct. In view of this it said it was making an offer to credit each property with £35 in acknowledgement of the issues with window cleaning.
The landlord did not explain in its stage 2 complaint response how it had arrived at the compensation of £35. The landlord told us that it had calculated this amount by allowing for the possibility of 3 missed visits over a 12-month period. It said that as window cleaning amounted to a monthly cost of £11.27 per resident, it calculated compensation of £33.81, which it rounded up to £35. It would have been appropriate for it to have set this out to the resident to help him to fully understand the award. That it did not do so was a shortcoming in its explanation of the compensation.
The landlord wrote to residents in February 2023, detailing that 17 out of 19 properties within the building had asked to opt out of the window cleaning contract. It said that this service was therefore removed from the 2023/2024 service charge budget.
The landlord told us that it had decided to compensate each resident of the estate as a gesture of goodwill, given there was “evidently dissatisfaction with the window cleaning service to warrant it being removed all together”. However, we note from internal records from the time of the complaint that the landlord also detailed that its property manager had made a note in his handover of “poor service” with window cleaning. The landlord noted that issues raised around window cleaning were not recorded on its system so could not be “evidenced”.
We have not been provided with a copy of the handover to which the landlord has referred. It should reasonably have provided this evidence. That it did not do so was a failing in record keeping.
We note the resident has said he wants the landlord to award to reflect 6 months of missed appointments. The records do not show any missed appointments or issues with the window cleaning during this period. There is insufficient evidence for us to conclude that any of these appointments were missed.
The award made by the landlord was reasonable, and appropriately acknowledged the possibility that there may have been issues with window cleaning prior to April 2022. With consideration to all the circumstances, we have made a finding of reasonable redress by the landlord.
We acknowledge that the landlord no longer provides a window cleaning service for the resident’s property. However, we have recommended that it review whether it has appropriate processes and training in place for staff to record and act on issues raised around contractor performance.

Window and door repairs

The resident raised concerns that the landlord had undertaken window and door repairs that it should not have completed. The landlord appropriately addressed this concern within its stage 1 complaint response. At this time, it explained why it had completed this work, and that it considered it was in line with its lease obligations. It also appropriately directed the resident to the section within his lease under which it had completed this work. We acknowledge that the resident has said that the lease refers only to the landlord completing work to the outside face of external doors. He has also raised concerns that the landlord completed any work to windows. However, the landlord explained clearly why it considered it was responsible for these repairs.
The landlord’s response to the resident on this point was appropriate and reasonable. However, it would also have been appropriate for it to direct him on how he could pursue any outstanding concerns about the reasonableness of the service charge. While it appropriately referred him to the Ombudsman, it should reasonably have also signposted him to the FTT or to seek legal advice around any outstanding concerns about this matter. Not doing so was a failing which meant the resident was not provided with adequate information about how any remaining concerns could be addressed
The landlord did not respond further to the resident’s concerns about the window and door repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. Instead, it noted that the resident’s outstanding concern was around the charge for window cleaning. However, in responding to the landlord’s stage 2 response, the resident raised concerns that it had not addressed all the issues in this response.
The landlord told us that it was unclear about the issues the resident remained dissatisfied about and so it limited its response to the information available at the time. While it recorded that the resident had attended its office to escalate his complaint on 24 April 2024, it did not make clear notes of what was discussed. It made a further note on 22 May 2023 that a deadline extension had been agreed. It detailed then that it had discussed the complaint with the resident, and the issues with window cleaning. However, in its stage 2 complaint response the landlord referred to its conversation with the resident on 15 May 2023. Details of this conversation are not recorded. The landlord should reasonably have made and stored clear and accurate records of all discussions with the resident about his complaint. That it did not do so means that it cannot demonstrate that it fully addressed and responded to all the resident’s outstanding concerns.
Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door repairs.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints process sets out that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days. However, while the landlord noted the resident had raised a complaint on 31 March 2023, it did not provide its stage 1 response until nearly 3 weeks later, on 18 April 2023. The landlord noted on the same day it issued its stage 1 complaint response that it had agreed a complaint extension in its initial complaint acknowledgement call to the resident. But it should reasonably have made clear record of this agreed extension, rather than noting this information at the time of issuing the delayed response. This was a record keeping failing.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was also outside the 15 working day timeframe set out in its complaint’s process. While noting the resident had escalated his complaint on 24 April 2023, it only noted that a complaint extension had been agreed on 22 May 2023. By this time, its complaint response was already overdue. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), the landlord should reasonably have agreed any extension with the resident in advance. That it cannot demonstrate it did so is a failing. Further, it would have been appropriate for it to have apologised to the resident, in its eventual complaint responses, for the delay in providing these. That it did not do so was a further failing.
As noted earlier, we have also found failings in the landlord’s recording of conversations with the resident when he escalated his complaint. This failing means the landlord cannot demonstrate that it addressed and responded to all the resident’s outstanding concerns in its stage 2 complaint response. As set out in the Code, the landlord should have addressed all points raised in the complaint. That it cannot adequately demonstrate it did so is a complaint handling failing. Overall, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord provided reasonable redress to the resident in response to his concerns about the standard of window cleaning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about window and door repairs.
2. service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.
3. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £150, made up of:
  1. £75 for the impact of failings identified in its handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs to windows and doors.
  2. £75 for the impact of failings in its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review record keeping failings identified and consider whether it has adequate processes and training for staff to avoid these failings being repeated.
2. review whether it has adequate training and guidance to staff in respect of appropriately sign-posting residents to the FTT or to seek legal advice where service charges are in dispute.
3. remind complaint handling staff of the importance of making clear record of agreed extensions and of apologising for delayed complaint responses.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of its compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should repeat its offer to reimburse £35 to each resident in the building in recognition of the issues with window cleaning.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review whether it has appropriate processes and training in place for staff to record and act on issues raised around contractor performance.