The Extracare Charitable Trust (202346297)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202346297

The Extracare Charitable Trust

12 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the security and facilities provided at his retirement village.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of a 1 bedroom flat within a retirement village. His lease began on 4 April 2023. The retirement village is owned and managed by the landlord, which is a specialist provider of retirement housing for those aged 55+. The resident’s daughter acted as he representative in his complaint to the landlord.
The retirement village has a gym within it. Members of the public can join the gym and access it using a keycard.
On 17 November 2023, the resident’s daughter wrote to the landlord. She raised concerns about:
1. The village having no night manager or security on site during the evenings.
2. Emergency services struggling to gain access to the building out of hours.
3. The inner door on the main entrance having been out of service for several weeks.
4. The onsite bar was “closed more often that it is open”, due to staff shortages.
5. The onsite bistro was expensive, with long waiting times and poor service.
The landlord met with the resident and his daughter on 1 December 2023 to discuss her concerns. On 8 December 2023, the resident’s daughter emailed the landlord advising she had discovered that gym members keycards granted them access to residential areas.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 15 December 2023. It provided a ‘first contract resolution’ response under its complaints process. It said that:
1. It only had a night concierge present on a small number of locations, following “genuine concerns/incidents”. The resident’s village had no identified need for this.
2. Emergency services had not raised any concerns about accessing the premises. It would need to be provided with dates and times of any such issues to investigate them.
3. It apologised for the length of time the inner doors had been out of service. It was currently unable to provide a date for repair of these. The door was not a security door and designed for temperature control purposes.
4. It was employing additional staff to cover the shortages which had caused the bar to close. It would be reviewing the operating times of the bar with residents in January 2024.
5. The bistro prices were based on supply and demand costs and reviewed regularly to provide value for money. It was keen to receive feedback from any residents who were not satisfied with their purchase.
On 21 December 2023, the landlord provided a further letter in response to additional points raised by the resident’s daughter. It said that:
1. It had confirmed with its maintenance department that gym members had limited access to the village, which did not include residential areas.
2. Some gym members may also be relatives/carers of residents and have access to the residential areas due to this.
3. It had agreed with the local police to hold regular meetings which would be advertised to residents to attend.
The resident’s daughter raised a complaint on his behalf on 22 January 2024. She said that:
1. The management, security and facilities of the village had fallen short of what the resident had been promised at the point of sale.
2. There were no management or “suitable staff” on site from 6pm until 8am. This was unacceptable for such a large retirement village with so many vulnerable residents.
3. The CCTV was not monitored and only reviewed after incidents had been reported.
4. She did not accept the landlord’s explanation that some gym members had access to residential areas due to being relatives of residents. This was not the case with the gym member she had asked to test his keycard.
5. The secondary doors to the main entrance had been out of order for 3 months.
6. The bar was often closed and shut earlier than the advertised opening times.
7. The onsite bistro was expensive, wait times were long and quality was poor.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2024. It said that:
1. It had reviewed the staffing levels at the resident’s retirement village and found them to be in line with its other villages. There was an assistant care manager on duty until 10pm, 7 days a week, and 2 night staff.
2. Any additional services, such as a concierge, at the resident’s village would incur extra costs for residents.
3. It would not consider monitoring live CCTV due to the significant cost implications for residents.
4. It had reviewed the access privileges for gym members to ensure they had access only to the front door and gym facilities. Not residential areas.
5. The secondary doors had now been repaired. As previously stated, these were designed for temperature control and not a security measure.
6. It had reviewed the bar opening times. The bar has closed early recently due to staff sickness, but it had put measures in place to ensure this did not happen again.
7. It did not subsidise food and drink, so the bistro was subject to external factors driving up prices. However, it felt that it provided a wide range of choices and value for money.
On 15 February 2024, the resident’s daughter responded. She said that:
1. The activities on offer within the retirement village were not as advertised when the resident moved in and were “what you would expect in a care home” rather than an independent living retirement community.
2. The bar was often not open during the advertised times and had been closed early due to staff sickness on several occasions.
3. The retirement village was now more than 75% occupied, but the number of staff had not increased at the same rate. The landlord collected service charges to fund staff and should be able to afford a night concierge from the existing budget.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 March 2024. It said that:
1. It felt that there was a variety of activities on offer. It would ensure that these were clearly advertised on the communal noticeboard. It was also in the process of establishing a residents’ committee which would provide input to the activities offered.
2. Its checks had found that the bar opening hours were being kept to as advertised. Its records did not evidence any other occasions of the bar closing early, beyond those acknowledge in its stage 1 response.
3. Its retirement villages operate under a staffing structure which remains unchanged regardless of resident numbers. It had subsidised this during the early period of the resident’s village being open, until resident numbers had been sufficient to meet the costs.
4. Provision of a night concierge was outside of this structure and would incur an extra charge. This would necessitate a consultation of residents affected and their unanimous agreement. It was currently determining the costs of such a service and would consult with residents about this.

Assessment and findings

The role of the Ombudsman is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine what services the landlord should provide within its retirement villages (beyond those expressly contained within its occupancy agreements) nor to assess the quality of these. Due to this this investigation will primarily consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and whether it adequately addressed these.
The resident’s concerns can be broadly broken down into 2 categories. Those concerning the security of the retirement village and those concerning the facilities and activities provided.

Security concerns

The resident’s daughter expressed concern at the level of overnight staffing in the village, and the lack of a ‘night concierge’. In its letter of 15 December 2023, the landlord reasonably explained that it only employed a night concierge on a limited number of sites which had experienced “genuine concerns/incidents”. It said that the resident’s village had not had any such incidents and so there was no identified need for night security. Whilst the resident’s daughter mentioned several incidents of antisocial behaviour in correspondence with the landlord, it is apparent that most of these had not been reported to the landlord previously. So, its position on this was reasonable.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that it operated a consistent staffing model across its retirement villages. It explained that on those sites where it did employ a night concierge residents paid an extra charge for this within their service charge. In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that implementing such an extra charge would require it to consult with all residents and seek their unanimous agreement. The landlord advised it was currently in the process of arranging this. This was an appropriate manner for it to determine its next steps.
The resident’s daughter also expressed concern that the landlord did not monitor the CCTV system at the village, only reviewing it after incidents had been reported. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that it would not consider monitoring CCTV 24/7 due to the “significant cost implications for residents and infrequent number of incidents reported”. This was a reasonable position. It would not be proportionate for the landlord to employ staff solely to monitor CCTV based on an apparent limited number of incidents.
The resident’s daughter claimed that members of the onsite gym had keycards which granted access to the residential areas of the gym. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said it had reviewed the ‘access privileges’ of gym members to ensure they only had access to the main entrance and gym facilities.
The resident’s daughter also complained about the inner main doors to the village being out of service. In her complaint of 22 January 2024, she referred to these as having been out of order for 3 months. It is apparent that the doors were repaired sometime between the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 1 response of 14 February.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that these doors were not a security measure but designed solely for temperature control. It is concerning that the landlord failed to repair the doors for such a lengthy period. Particularly when this period was over the cold winter months during which the doors’ functionality would be most required.

Facilities and activities

The resident’s daughter expressed dissatisfaction that the activities on offer at the retirement village were not as advertised when her father purchased the property. The Ombudsman does not have access to the promotional material made available to prospective residents to assess this claim.
The landlord’s website contains a page advertising the activities available within its retirement villages. However, this page notes that “not all activities are available at every location. Contact the locations to find out more”.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it had a “wide variety” of services available at the resident’s village. It said the village offered bespoke activities based on resident interest and feedback. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord advised it was currently forming a resident’s association to provide input and guidance on activities available. This was an appropriate way to ensure resident’s wishes were catered to and appropriate activities available.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been an occasion where the bar on site closed early due to staff sickness. In its stage 1 response it said it had put measures in place “to ensure that this doesn’t happen again and that future events are staffed appropriately”. In its stage 2 response the landlord said it had carried out spot checks of the bar and found it was operating in keeping with the advertised opening hours.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord explained that it did not subsidise the bistro, so it was subject to “external factors” in terms of pricing. At stage 2 it said it was keen to collect resident feedback to “implement measures” to enhance their bistro experience.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint responses adequately addressed all concerns raised by the resident’s daughter in her complaint. It provided reasonable responses to her concerns and showed a willingness to consult with residents and use their feedback to improve its services. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the security and facilities provided at his retirement village.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord carries out a review of the delay in repairing the inner main doors in winter 2023/24 to establish the causes of the delay and consider measures it can put in place to avoid this in future.