The Pioneer Housing and Community Group Limited (202325992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325992

The Pioneer Housing and Community Group 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of car park gate repairs.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord, which began on 23 November 2021. The landlord is a housing association. The resident lives in a 2-bedroom flat on the second floor. The resident has no known vulnerabilities.
4. On 25 July 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about the gates to a secure car park not working. The resident:
   1. Said the gates had not worked for a month.
   2. Acknowledged that the gates needed a new part but said it should not take so long to obtain this.
   3. Asked why it was taking so long to complete the repair.
5. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 July 2023 and issued a stage 1 complaint response on 10 August 2023. The landlord:
   1. Acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the length of time taken to repair the car park gate.
   2. Said the contractor attended 2 weeks prior to install new sensors but found further damage that needed parts ordering and another visit. It said it expected the contractor to receive the parts in the week commencing 14 August 2023 and repair the gate the same week.
   3. Said the follow-on repairs were unforeseen and caused the delay in fixing the gate.
   4. Acknowledged the frustration caused and apologised for the inconvenience.
6. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 22 August 2023. The resident said:
   1. The contractor had not repaired the car park gate.
   2. The landlord had not explained why the repair had not gone ahead.
7. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 25 August 2023 and issued a stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. In summary, the landlord:
   1. Apologised for the inconvenience caused.
   2. Accepted that the time taken to complete the repair was not acceptable and that the whole process was not at the level the contractor expected to convey to residents.
   3. Said several issues with the car park gates had prevented the contractor from completing the work in a timely manner. It said the contractor visited several times and confirmed a fabricator was required to weld the gates before it could install new sensors due to previous damage caused.
   4. Confirmed work would begin on 9 October 2023 and take 2-3 days to complete.
   5. Said it would consider issues raised regarding security of the premises and making sure all residents had fobs to access the building safely.
   6. Invited the resident to contact it within 10 days if she remained unhappy.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. On 24 October 2023, the resident said:
   1. The landlord had not responded to her stage 3 escalation request.
   2. Fabricators had completed work over 2 weeks prior, but the contractor had not been out to fit the sensors.
   3. The car park gates had not worked since the end of June 2023. She said 4 months was far too long to compromise the security of the premises.
9. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s response on 25 October 2023. It said its management department would contact her in due course.
10. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 October 2023. The complaint became one that we could consider on 9 May 2024.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

11. The landlord’s repairs policy says it completes non-emergency repairs within an average of 7 days of reporting.
12. At the time of this complaint, the landlord had a 2-stage complaint process with the option for a 3-stage process. Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) from April 2022 set out what we expected from a landlord that had a 3-stage process. The landlord’s complaints process fell in line with this. When the Code became statutory from April 2024, it required landlords to have a 2-stage process. The landlord reviewed its complaint process to ensure that its new process, effective from March 2024, complied with the Code.

Landlord’s handling of repairs of gates to a secure car park

13. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether it resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, this Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
14. The resident says the gates for the secure car park stopped working on 29 June 2023. The landlord says it was made aware of this on 13 July 2023. An internal landlord email dated 13 July 2023 requested it chase up the job with the contractor due to the gates not working for a month and residents complaining about non-residents using the car park. This email supports that the gates stopped working sometime in June 2023. However, the landlord has not provided any evidence of being informed that the gates were not working prior to 13 July 2023, which indicates a possible issue with its record keeping.
15. There appears to have been an initial delay in a contractor attending to fix the gates, with the first visit taking place on 4 August 2023. This is a failing, with the delay exceeding the landlord’s timeframe for non-emergency repairs.
16. The landlord says the contractor repaired broken cables during the first visit but found further damage. It has not provided evidence of the visit, which further indicates a possible issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
17. The contractor attended 8 times from its first visit on 4 August 2023 to when it repaired the car park gates on 1 February 2024. On 5 of the visits, it found unforeseen issues due to further damage to the gates and needing new parts. These issues, as well as delays in the contractor attending and providing quotes to the landlord, approximately 1 month’s delay waiting for a fabricator to weld the gates and the contractor awaiting parts from its supplier, adversely impacted the time taken to repair the gates. Although this was a non-emergency repair, it took approximately 7 months to fix the gates, which is a significant length of time and represents a failing.
18. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on its contractors’ assessments, but the contractor’s failings meant the landlord had to chase the repair on several occasions. That said, not all the landlord’s contacts were in a timely manner, which likely caused further delay and represents a failing by the landlord.
19. We are aware that it can take more than one attempt for a landlord to resolve an issue, particularly when that issue is complex or unforeseen events occur. However, we would expect a landlord to keep the resident updated regarding any issues that arise and the next steps it will take. Where a landlord has not kept a resident informed, it has likely not managed their expectations appropriately and would therefore be a failing by the landlord.
20. Apart from responding to the resident’s complaint, there is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date about why it was taking so long to repair the gates. This is a failing, which likely prompted the resident to complain and likely caused distress and further inconvenience. The landlord missed the opportunity to keep the resident up to date until it repaired the gates.
21. The resident would have expected the landlord to take reasonable steps to resolve the issues in a timely manner in line with its repairs policy. The significant delay in repairing the gates meant the car park was not secure and likely caused the resident distress due to concerns about security. The failings identified constitute maladministration and an order has been made below for remedy in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
22. Although we were able to determine this case using the information that was available, it is vital that landlords keep clear and accurate records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures. A further order has therefore been made that the landlord conduct a review of its record keeping processes, ensuring there is a clear audit trail for any repairs and communication with residents.

Complaint handling

23. The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord on 25 July 2023.
24. The landlord’s complaints process confirmed it would acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue a stage 1 response within a further 10 working days.
25. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 July 2023, which was in line with its process. It issued its stage 1 response on 10 August 2023, which was 2 days outside the timeframe specified in its complaints policy and is a failing but would have likely had minimal impact on the resident.
26. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 22 August 2023.
27. The landlord’s complaints process confirmed it would acknowledge a stage 2 escalation request within 5 working days and issue a stage 2 response within a further 20 working days.
28. On 25 August 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request received on 22 August 2023. It then issued its stage 2 response on 20 September 2023. Therefore, it responded in line with its complaints policy. However, the landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s stage 2 escalation request, which appears to further indicate an issue with its record keeping.
29. The landlord’s stage 2 response should have offered the resident the option to either escalate her complaint to stage 3 or contact the Ombudsman if she remained unhappy. The landlord offered the option to escalate to stage 3 but did not provide details for the Ombudsman, which was not line with its complaints policy in place at the time and is a failing.
30. On 24 October 2023, the resident chased a response to her stage 3 complaint. It is unclear on what date the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 3. This is because the landlord has not provided a copy of her stage 3 escalation request, which again appears to indicate an issue with its record keeping.
31. On 25 October 2023, the landlord told the resident that its management department would respond in due course. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted the resident again. This is a further failing.
32. The landlord’s failures prompted the resident to bring her complaint to our Service. However, its failure to signpost the resident to the Ombudsman at stage 2 and its lack of response at stage 3 of its complaints process prolonged the complaints process and appear to have delayed the resident contacting our Service, likely causing frustration and further inconvenience. These failings represent service failure, and an order has been made for remedy.

Determination

33. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs of gates to a secure car park.
34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

35. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failings identified.
    2. Pay compensation totalling £275, comprised as follows:
       1. £200 for the failures identified regarding its handling of car park gate repairs
       2. £75 for its complaint handling failures
36. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must review its record keeping processes, ensuring there is a clear audit trail for any repairs and communication with residents.
37. The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within the timeframe set out above.