Southern Housing (202232960)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232960

Southern Housing

17 December 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. damage to the resident’s window and balcony following cyclical works in 2020.
2. communal facilities.
3. communal repairs.
4. estate management and communication.
5. the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat under a shared-ownership lease agreement. The resident said that he has ADHD. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In April 2022 the resident complained to the landlord that:
1. the landlord had not improved the security of the building and estate following agreements made in a resident’s meeting in summer 2021
2. the landlord had not conducted any estate visits for some time
3. the landlord had not responded to his emails and text messages
4. the bike store door had been forced and needed a repair
5. his bike had been stolen from the bike store on 10 April 2022
6. the landlord had not sent a letter to residents regarding use of the communal garden, which it had agreed as an outcome to a previous complaint
7. the landlord had not repaired the external communal lighting
8. the landlord had not allowed the resident’s broadband contractor access to install the equipment
9. the landlord had not provided an update to residents regarding its project to install high-speed broadband
As an outcome the resident said he would like the landlord to:
1. review the service he was receiving, including estate visits and communication
2. review the security on the building and provide an update on what plans the landlord had
3. repair the lock to the bike store
4. reimburse him for the cost of his bike in the sum of £1000
5. remind residents on a regular basis regarding use of the communal garden
6. repair the communal lighting
7. provide an update on the landlord’s project to install high-speed broadband
In its stage 1 response on 19 July 2022, the landlord said it:
1. apologised that it had not completed actions from a previous complaint
2. had reviewed its service delivery to leaseholders and shared owners and formed a new Home Ownership Team
3. had reviewed the resident’s request to install CCTV into the building and taken the decision that this was not a viable option
4. had been working to install a video entry system to the communal door
5. had continued to appoint a security firm to monitor the estate
6. had sent out letters to all residents advising on how to report anti-social behaviour (ASB)
7. had asked its contractor to provide a quote for additional security and metal work to the bike store
8. would consult with all residents, including leaseholders, regarding use of the communal garden and would provide an update to the resident after this
9. had raised a repair for the 3 external communal lights and would attend on 25 July 2022
10. had no plans at that time to install infrastructure to support an upgrade to high-speed broadband and that any upgrades to the broadband would trigger a section 20 consultation
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated his complaint on 19 July 2022, when he said:
1. he did not agree that the landlord needed to conduct a consultation regarding access to the communal garden because the landlord had done this on 4 previous occasions
2. the landlord had said it would send a garden access letter for 3 years and had not sent it, despite it promising to as part of a previous complaint
3. he did not agree there would be a cost to residents if the broadband was upgraded because the install is done at a cost to the provider
4. he would like the landlord to provide access to the hatch to enable his broadband provider to install high-speed broadband to the building
On 22 September 2022 the resident asked the landlord to add the following issues to his complaint:
1. damage to the resident’s window following cyclical works in 2020
2. damage to the resident’s balcony following cyclical works in 2020
In its stage 2 response dated 17 May 2023, the landlord said:
1. it had replaced the main entrance door in November 2022
2. it was unable to proceed with the installation of the video entry system due to the majority outcome of the consultation process being no
3. it had confirmed this to all residents in writing on 4 May 2023
4. it had visited the bike store on 15 May 2023 and found it to be secure
5. it had obtained a quote to upgrade the security of the bike store, it would consult with residents and if the majority agreed, it would proceed
6. it had previously sent a letter to all residents regarding access to the communal garden, it agreed to send reminder in 2023 but would not send any further lettersit advised the resident to report any future issues of residents accessing the garden without permission and the landlord would investigate
7. it was unable to provide access to the resident’s contractor to install high-speed broadband to the building
8. it provided an update on its broadband upgrade programme
As a resolution the landlord offered:
1. an apology for the delay in providing its complaint response at stage 2
2. £175 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £50 for delay at stage 2
  2. £125 for inconvenience, time and trouble
In communication with this service the resident said that he was frustrated about the delays in the landlord completing the repairs and the communication from the landlord. He was also frustrated that he had to raise complaints about actions the landlord had agreed to undertake as outcomes to previous complaints he had made.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) (2022). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: b. were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaint procedure”

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the resident’s reports about the landlord’s handling of damage to his balcony and window during cyclical works in 2020. This is because these issues were dealt with through the landlord’s complaint process following a complaint from the resident in June 2021. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 19 August 2021.
The landlord’s complaint response refers to the resident withdrawing this issue from his complaint, which the resident disagrees with. However, there is no evidence that the resident referred the complaint to the Ombudsman within 12 months of the response being sent, nor that he was prevented from doing so. Therefore, the complaint from 2021 is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and not one that this service will investigate.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman is aware that the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s consultation process regarding the communal door entry system in March 2023. The landlord did not address this in its complaint response and therefore this issue has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process. For this reason, this aspect of the resident’s complaint does not form part of this investigation.
In the interest of fairness, the Ombudsman has limited the scope of this investigation to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint dated 10 April 2022, which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 17 May 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. However, we have assessed the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the consultation process as part of its complaint handling later in this report.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects, and it is well-established good practice, that landlords create and maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Clear records also demonstrate that landlords have complied with their legal and regulatory duties. Good record keeping can resolve disputes as and when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this service’s ability to conduct a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of communal facilities

The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of communal facilities including:
1. CCTV and door entry system
2. use of the communal garden
3. high-speed broadband
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these requests (below) separately for clarity.

CCTV and door entry system

The resident said he had asked the landlord to consider installing CCTV in the building and specifically to the rear of the building where the bike stores were situated. The resident said he met with the landlord in summer 2021 when it had agreed to look at improving security on the estate in response to the reports of anti-social behaviour. The resident’s bike was stolen from the communal bike store in April 2022 which is when he raised the issue of security again with the landlord.
In April 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he had met with the Police Crime Prevention Officer who had recommended CCTV be installed near the doors and bike stores. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord was aware of the Police Crime Prevention Officer visit or whether it received a copy of the recommendations. However, it is evident that the landlord was in contact with the Police and the local authority ASB team around this time because it was recorded at a resident’s meeting on 23 June 2022.
In June 2022 the resident informed the landlord that he was still waiting for an update regarding installation of additional CCTV.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for additional CCTV as part of his complaint. In its complaint response the landlord said that in its opinion CCTV had not always been shown to discourage ASB and therefore it had decided not to install additional CCTV. While the resident did not agree with the landlord’s decision, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s actions were reasonable, in that it reached a decision it was entitled to make.
The landlord said that it was working on installing a video entry system to the resident’s building to improve security. It said it had obtained quotes to replace the communal door and had asked the contractor to provide a quote to replace the existing audio entry system with a video entry system. However, the landlord confirmed that this was yet to be installed and, in the meantime, it had instructed a security contractor to monitor the estate to give reassurance to residents. It also said it had sent a letter to residents to encourage reporting of ASB.
We can see that the landlord consulted with residents regarding the door entry system in May 2022 and June 2022. The landlord replaced the communal door in November 2022. It also replaced the existing audio door entry system with another audio door entry system.
On 9 March 2023 the landlord wrote to all residents again regarding upgrading the replaced audio entry system to a video entry system following a request it had received. On 4 May 2023 the landlord wrote to residents advising that it would not be upgrading to a video entry system because it had not received the required responses to the consultation and would close the request.
While the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s consultation process, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for additional CCTV was unreasonable. It considered the resident’s request, consulted with other residents, as it was obliged to do, and reached a decision it was entitled to make.

Use of the communal garden

On 12 April 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to say he was still waiting for an update regarding use of the communal garden. He referred to a previous complaint in which he said the landlord had agreed to send a letter to the general needs residents, reminding them that they were not allowed use of the garden. The garden was situated behind the resident’s building and only meant for use by leaseholders and shared owners. The resident complained to the landlord that general needs residents and non-residents were using the garden and some were allowing their dogs to foul in the garden. It would appear from the records that a bin store, used by general needs residents, was located in the garden. This meant that general needs residents had to enter the garden to access their bin store.
On 30 May 2022 the landlord put up an estate notice to remind general needs residents that they should only enter the garden to access the bin store.
In its stage 1 response the landlord said there was a consultation in place to all residents to ascertain their views on whether all tenures had access to the gardens and bin stores, or if it should continue to be leaseholders and shared owners only. The resident objected to this, stating that the landlord had consulted with residents on 4 occasions over the previous 12 years, the last one being in 2019.
Upon further review of its records, the landlord agreed the consultation in 2019 had concluded that only leaseholders and shared owners had use of the garden, although general needs residents had access to the area to access the bike store and bin area.
The landlord wrote to the general needs residents around February 2023 about access to a new bin store. Although the letter we have seen is undated and we are unable to establish exactly when the landlord sent it, it provides evidence that the landlord had communicated with its general needs residents about access to the communal garden being for access to the bin store only.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord confirmed that it had previously sent a letter to all residents about the use of the communal garden and it agreed to send a reminder in 2023. It said it would not send out reminder letters in the future. However, it asked the resident to let it know if there were any future issues with residents using the garden who were not meant to and it would investigate his reports.
The Ombudsman understands that the resident was unhappy because the landlord had not sent the letter to its general needs residents, which it had agreed to do as part of a previous complaint. The Ombudsman also understands that monitoring use of the garden and stopping general needs residents from accessing it, would be difficult for the landlord to manage. This is due to the general needs residents requiring access to the garden in order to use the bin store. However, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord sent letters and communicated with its general needs residents about this issue. It also agreed to investigate any future reports the resident made. This was, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable in the circumstances.

High-speed broadband

On 16 June 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that he had not received an update regarding the landlord’s project to upgrade to high-speed broadband. Because the landlord had not provided its stage 1 response, it incorporated the resident’s request into its complaint response, which was reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident’s service charges outline the services the landlord provides at his property, which includes the servicing, repairing and maintaining the communal TV aerial system. This does not include broadband and there is no legal obligation on the landlord to provide this service. It would normally be for individual residents to instruct their own broadband contractor. However, where it concerns a building of multiple occupation, as in this case, the landlord would need to ensure that any contractors installing infrastructure for services such as broadband are approved contractors and have the relevant health and safety requirements to install and maintain the equipment going forward.
In its stage 1 response the landlord informed the resident that there were no plans to install any infrastructure to support an upgrade to high-speed broadband at that time. The resident asked the landlord to provide his contractor with access to the roof hatch so that the contractor could install high-speed broadband to the building.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said it was unable to provide access to the resident’s contractor for just his property. It said there had been a delay in it delivering its broadband programme due to it going through a merger, which had caused a backlog of upgrade requests. It said it was working through the backlog and confirmed it was in discussions with providers to formalise a programme of works to install high speed broadband in the resident’s building so that it would be available to all residents. The landlord said the upgrade may not happen until the end of the financial year, which would be March 2024.
It is unclear from the records whether the upgrade went ahead and if so, when.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s perspective that he requested an update from the landlord on its plans to upgrade the broadband in June 2022. While the landlord’s explanation in its complaint responses was reasonable, because there was a delay in the landlord providing its stage 2 complaint response, this resulted in a delay in the resident receiving an update. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord ought to have considered sending an update regarding the landlord’s plans for upgrading the broadband service sooner rather than waiting until it sent its stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of communal repairs

The landlord is responsible for all external maintenance and repairs, which would include external communal areas. The resident’s lease states that the service charge includes a shared cost for maintaining all common parts. Leaseholders may be liable for extra charges to pay for major repairs or works classed as improvements.
Once the landlord becomes aware of a repair, it would be expected to complete the repair within reasonable timescales. The landlord’s repair policy does not give a specific timescale for when it will complete communal repairs, however, in line with standards of best practice across the industry, it would be expected to carry out non-emergency repairs, such as repairs to external lighting and locks in communal areas, within 28 days.
The resident has complained about repairs to:
1. external communal lighting
2. the bike store
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of these repairs (below) separately for clarity.

External communal lighting

The resident raised concerns about the external lights in the garden area not working in April 2022. He chased the landlord for updates regarding this repair on 18 May 2022 and 16 June 2022.
On or around 25 July 2022 a contractor attended and did some work on the lights. Due to lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine:
1. what repairs the contractor completed
2. when the contractor completed the repairs
3. whether the repairs were reasonable in the circumstances
On 4 November 2022 the resident raised concerns about the external communal lights not working again. Due to lack of adequate records, it is not possible to determine what action the landlord took following this report, if any.
The landlord did not refer to the communal lighting in its stage 2 response and it later told the resident this was because it understood it had repaired the lighting in July 2022. The landlord informed the resident that it had passed the lighting repair back to its repair team.
The landlord should have completed an effective and lasting repair to the lights. We can see that in October 2023 the resident informed the landlord that, because it had replaced the lights with globe lights and not downlights, the lights were now too bright and were shining into his flat, causing a disturbance.
We can see that the resident contacted the landlord again in February 2024 to report that the communal lights were not working again. The landlord has confirmed to this service that it adjusted the lighting on 30 August 2024 and it was left in good working order. Therefore, it would appear that it took the landlord over 2 years to complete effective and lasting repairs to the communal lights. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that such a delay was reasonable or unavoidable. This was a significant failure by the landlord.

The bike store

On 11 April 2022 the resident reported that the bike store had been broken into and his bike had been stolen. The resident requested that the landlord replace the lock because it could easily be forced open and was no longer secure. The landlord advised the resident to report the theft of his bike to the Police and said it would visit the site that week to inspect. Due to the lack of adequate records we are unable to determine whether the inspection took place and what works were raised following this. It is also evident that the landlord did not update the resident because he contacted the landlord on 18 April 2022 requesting an update.
In its stage 1 response the landlord accepted that just changing the lock on the bike store would not be sufficient. It confirmed it had asked its contractor to provide a quote to provide additional security and metal work in the bike store, to include 6 cycle loops. It would appear that this was not completed because the resident contacted the landlord again in November 2022 to request an update as no work had been carried out.
The records indicate that the landlord was considering whether the resident’s request to replace the bike store lock and improve security was a repair or an improvement, in which case it would need to conduct a section 20 consultation. While it was reasonable of the landlord to consider this, it ought to have provided the resident with an update on why there was a delay. The landlord did not do this in this case, which was not reasonable and meant that the resident continued to chase it for updates.
The landlord visited the site on 15 May 2023 to inspect the bike store and found it to be secure. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s assessment of the door and said that it was insecure and weak. The resident sent the landlord a video which showed how the door could be unlocked with ease. The resident asked the landlord to reconsider its position.
On 14 June 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm:
1. it had inspected the bike store and found the padlock to be heavy duty
2. it did not agree with the resident’s opinion that the marks on the padlock had impacted on its effectiveness
3. the bike store was locked and secure when it had visited on 15 May 2023
4. it could ask the repair team to source a new ‘like for like’ padlock
5. it would consult with residents regarding upgrading the lock to a fob system
6. it would look to fit a guard where there was a slight gap between the wall and the metal frame door
7. it had passed this request to its surveyor to obtain quotes
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it had obtained a quote to install a new access system to the garden gates and bike stores for the resident’s block, which this service has seen. It said it would consult with residents regarding this and, if the majority agreed, it would proceed with the works. However, it is unclear from the available evidence if the consultation went ahead, whether it was agreed and what works, if any, the landlord completed.
In his complaint, the resident asked the landlord to pay for his bike, which had been stolen from the bike store in April 2022. The lease states that the landlord is not liable for any costs arising from theft of articles of value belonging to the resident from the premises or any other part of the blocks. Therefore, the landlord was not responsible for reimbursing the resident for the theft of his bike.
In summary, there were delays in the landlord inspecting the bike stores following the resident’s report in April 2022. There were also delays in the landlord reaching the decision that the work was an improvement and not a repair. It is also evident that the landlord failed to keep the resident updated regarding his report, which resulted in him having to chase the landlord for updates. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that such delays were reasonable or unavoidable. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of estate management and communication

In his initial complaint the resident said the landlord had not conducted sufficient estate visits and that he had tried to contact his housing officer on several occasions by email and not received a response.
With regards to estate visits, the landlord’s homeowners policy says that the landlord would make regular visits to the blocks and estates it manages. The frequency of the visits would depend on the proximity to its offices and size of the development. The inspections would be to make sure the block and estate were properly maintained.
This service has seen evidence that the landlord inspected the resident’s block on approximately a bi-monthly basis between April 2022 and May 2023. The inspection involved checking both internal and external areas for repairs and health and safety issues, such as fire safety. This service has also seen evidence that the landlord held resident’s meetings to discuss estate management issues with residents. This was appropriate and consistent with the landlord’s policy.
In terms of communication, the resident explained that between June 2021 and April 2022, the landlord did not communicate with him in a timely manner. He said his requests for updates were ignored. He said the landlord had informed him on 9 March 2022 that it had not seen all his emails which it said was due to a spam filter. We are unable to establish from the records whether the spam filter affected delivery of the resident’s emails or not.
In relation to communication with the resident during his complaint, we can see that while the landlord did respond to the resident’s emails, there were delays in it providing relevant updates to the resident about various aspects of his complaint which are outlined in this report. This resulted in the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking his reports seriously and left him chasing the landlord for a response to his concerns. This was not appropriate and a failure by the landlord.

Summary and conclusions

In summary, the landlord:
1. delayed unreasonably in completing the repairs to the communal lighting
2. delayed unreasonably in inspecting the bike store
3. delayed in reaching a decision whether the bike store was a repair or an improvement
4. failed to manage communications with the resident about the progress and timescales associated with the communal repairs and other aspects of his complaint
The Ombudsman considers this does amount to service failure and therefore the landlord should pay the resident compensation to recognise how its failures impacted him. However, we should also recognise that the impact on the resident for these delays would have been low as they related to communal repairs which did not significantly affect the enjoyment of his home.
The resident said that he found it frustrating having to chase the landlord for updates to his concerns. The resident said the lack of communication from the landlord left him frustrated because he did not know how the landlord intended to action his reports.
The landlord acknowledged some of its failures in its stage 2 complaint response and offered compensation to the resident. This included:
1. an apology for the delay in providing its stage 2 response
2. the landlord’s poor communication with the resident
3. the inconvenience, time and trouble taken by the resident
The landlord offered £125 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience, time and trouble. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £50 and £100 when there is evidence of a service failure by the landlord which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. While the Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident found dealing with the landlord frustrating due to the delays, we do not consider the impact on the resident to have been significant. The landlord’s offer of £125 is typical of the amount awarded by the Ombudsman for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and accordingly, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of being made and will provide its response within 10 working days of being acknowledged. At stage 2, the landlord will acknowledge escalation of the complaint within 5 working days and provide its response within 20 working days of being acknowledged.
This service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) (2022) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should manage complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
3. respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint
The resident raised his initial complaint on 10 April 2022. He contacted the landlord again on 12 April 2022 to add additional issues to his complaint. The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s communication as a complaint and it was only after he chased the landlord for an update on 16 June 2022 that it sent its acknowledgement on 21 June 2022. This was 48 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was not appropriate because it resulted in a delay in the landlord providing its stage 1 response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2022 to inform him that it needed additional time to respond to his complaint and said it would send its response within 10 working days. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 19 July 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted the landlord on 19 July 2022 to request it escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 August 2022, which was 26 working days later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 22 September 2022 saying that it required additional time to complete its investigation and said it would send its response by 28 October 2022. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 May 2023, which was approximately 7 months later. This was not appropriate because it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy and the Code.
Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. In this case, the resident had asked the landlord to reimburse him for the theft of his bike in his initial complaint. While the landlord was not obliged to reimburse the resident for this, it ought to have addressed this in its complaint response and signpost the resident to his own contents insurance. It did not do so in this case, which was a failure.
Further to this, in September 2022 and January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to add the damage to his window and balcony following cyclical works in 2020 to his complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry at the time. While the landlord would not have been obliged to investigate this issue due to it being subject to a previous complaint, it should have explained the reasons for this to the resident.
In March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to express his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s consultation process for the door entry system. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry at this time, save for an acknowledgement email. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord ought to have accepted this as a new complaint. This is because this was a separate subject to what the resident had raised in his initial complaint in April 2022. This was a failure by the landlord.
In summary, there were failures by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint in that it:
1. failed to recognise the resident’s communication in April 2022 as a formal complaint
2. delayed in acknowledging the resident’s complaint at both stages
3. delayed in providing a response at stage 2
4. did not address all aspects of the resident’s complaint
5. failed to recognise the resident’s complaint regarding the section 20 consultation process
The Ombudsman would consider these failures to amount to maladministration.
The landlord acknowledged its failures in its complaint responses. It apologised for the delay in providing a response at stage 2 and offered compensation of £50 for complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, provides awards of compensation between £100 and £600 when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident.
In this case, the delays recognised in the landlord’s complaint handling would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the complaint made him feel frustrated and that he was not being taken seriously. The delays prevented the resident from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that he could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation. We have therefore ordered the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of reports of damage to the resident’s window and balcony following cyclical works in 2020 is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal facilities.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of estate management and communication.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident compensation of £325 which is comprised of:
  1. £125 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the communal repairs
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint
This award replaces any offer made to date by the landlord through its internal complaints process. The landlord is entitled to offset against this sum any payments already made to the resident. All payments must be paid directly to the resident and not credited to the rent account unless otherwise agreed by the resident.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above orders within 28 days of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should update its systems to reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities, subject to the resident agreeing.