Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Thrive Homes Limited (202308302)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308302

Thrive Homes Limited

25 February 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:
    1. Repairs to:
      1. The communal front and back doors.
      2. A wall within the communal area.
    2. Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) within the communal area.
    3. A request to review the services provided in relation to the grounds maintenance and communal cleaning service charges.

Background

  1. This complaint was submitted to the landlord and Ombudsman as a group complaint. The complaint involves 8 residents. The residents are shared ownership leaseholders and assured shorthold tenants of the landlord. They live in apartments within the same housing scheme. The total number of households within the scheme is 11. The residents are represented in this complaint by one of the leaseholders who will be referred to in this report as “the lead complainant.”
  2. The landlord was made aware of an issue with the communal door locks on 15 March 2023. On the same day it removed the locks to both the front and back entrance to allow the resident’s access to the block. This left the block insecure. The landlord installed new locks to both the front and back communal doors on 20 June 2023.
  3. The residents raised a complaint with the landlord on 21 June 2023 about the delays in fixing the locks and incidents of theft, intimidation and attempted burglary. The landlord sent the residents a response on 29 June 2023. It said it found that it had not completed the repair within the timeframe set in its repairs policy and it apologised for the delay.
  4. The lead complainant contacted the landlord on 10 July 2023 to escalate the complaint to stage 2, as the residents were unhappy with the landlord’s apology. He told the landlord that the residents wanted to widen the scope of the complaint to include their dissatisfaction with the level of service they were receiving for the communal service charge. He said the landlord did not carry out the grounds maintenance and cleaning of the communal areas on a regular basis. He also said there was an outstanding repair to the wall in the communal area and there was an ongoing issue with dog fouling in the grounds.
  5. The landlord sent the residents a stage 2 complaint response on 8 August 2023. It said there were delays in fixing the communal door locks. However, it said there were no reports of ASB on its system. It said an issue with the communal cleaning was reported on 12 July 2023, and as a result, the block was cleaned. It said this was the first time residents had raised issues with the grounds maintenance. However, it said its contractors had been on site regularly with the most recent visit being on 27 July 2023. It said residents reported the repairs to the wall on 19 July 2023. It said it had issued the work to its contractor and the target completion date for the repair was 16 August 2023. It said residents had reported the dog foul on the plant beds on 4 April 2023 and it was cleaned on 6 April 2023. The landlord offered each resident £75 compensation for the delays in fixing the communal door locks.
  6. The residents remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred their complaint to the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Part of the lead resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the request for a review of the service charge costs. We cannot investigate complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with the lead resident was fair and reasonable. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber).

Communal repairs

The communal front and back doors

  1. The residents reported an issue with the communal door locks to the building on 15 March 2023. The landlord removed the locks on the same day and installed new locks on 20 June 2023.
  2. The residents raised a complaint on 21 June 2023 as it had taken over 3 months for the landlord to complete the repair. They said that the block had been left insecure which led to residents being subject to thefts, intimidation and attempted burglaries.
  3. In its stage 1 response on 29 June 2023 the landlord accepted that it took over 3 months to fix the communal front and back door locks. It acknowledged that residents first reported the repair on 15 March 2023 and it did not complete the work until 20 June 2023. It accepted that this was outside of its 60 working day timeframe for planned repairs. It apologised to the residents for the delay. The residents escalated the complaint to stage 2 as they felt an apology was not a good enough response.
  4. In its stage 2 response on 8 August 2023 the landlord acknowledged that the residents said they were subject to harassment and intimidation, as non-residents were able to access the block. However, it said it had checked its systems and it could not find any reports of ASB. It offered the residents £75 compensation each for the delays to the repair.
  5. Although the landlord acknowledged the delay in the repair and offered compensation, it did not recognise the effect the delay had on the residents. The landlord said it had not had any reports of ASB relating to the outstanding repair. However, the evidence shows it received emails from residents on 5 and 6 June 2023 reporting unknown youths entering the block and kicking their doors, incidents of theft and intimidating behaviour. The evidence shows the landlord was aware of the ASB, but it did not complete the repairs for a further 2 weeks. It did not recognise this error and delay within the stage 2 response.

A wall within the communal area

  1. The lead resident said that the repair to the communal wall was first reported by telephone in July 2022. However, we have no documentary evidence to support this from either the lead resident or the landlord.
  2. The residents did not originally include the outstanding repair to the wall in the communal area within the stage 1 complaint. They asked the landlord to add this as an additional concern in their request to escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord agreed and included a response within the stage 2 letter. However, this was not in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (April 2022) (the Code) which states “where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response if they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued. Where the stage one response has been issued, or it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint”.
  3. In its stage 2 response the landlord said its records showed the repair to the wall was reported on 19 July 2023. It said it had a target date for completion of 16 August 2023. It said the repair was still within the repair time scales of 20 working days.
  4. However, following the stage 2 response, the lead resident made further contact with the landlord on 13 September 2023. He told the landlord that the repairs to the wall were still outstanding. The landlord’s records show that it did not complete the repair until 7 November 2023. This was 4 months from the date the repair was logged and outside of the original timeframe of 20 working days.
  5. In summary, the landlord did not complete the repairs to the doors and the wall within the timeframes set in the repairs guidelines. Although it offered compensation, it did not recognise the effect of the delays on the residents. It also did not respond to the resident’s complaint in line with the Code. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) within the communal area

  1. The residents complained of dog fouling in the communal area on 1 April 2023. An unknown person had trodden it onto the stair carpet. Residents believed that the dog in question belonged to one of the residents of the block as there had been similar issues in the past. The landlord arranged for its contractor to clean the carpet as a priority and this was done on 6 April 2023. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
  2. The lead resident contacted the landlord on 5 June 2023 and said that the incidents of dog fouling had recently decreased. However, he had seen someone fly tipping within the bin stores. He asked the landlord to install CCTV or a coded lock on the bin store. He said that there was a similar issue with the bike store. He also reported that residents were experiencing incidents of theft, trespass and intimidating behaviour. He told the landlord that this was because the block was insecure due to the outstanding repair to the communal locks. The evidence shows that there was a further report of ASB within the communal area on 6 June 2023.
  3. The landlord’s ASB policy recognises fly tipping, animal nuisance, vandalism and harassment as ASB. Its policy says it will log all reports of ASB and any referrals to statutory bodies and monitor the outcomes. It also says it will be clear about what action it can or cannot take and it will involve customers in the action plan to resolve the issue. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it logged the incidents of ASB reported by the residents, or that it followed the process set out in its ASB policy. This was inappropriate in the circumstances and unfair to the residents who were experiencing multiple issues.
  4. The residents raised a group complaint with the landlord on 21 June 2023. They raised concerns based on the ASB they had been subject to whilst waiting for repairs to the communal door locks.
  5. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 29 June 2023. It noted that it had an outstanding repair on its system to install a lock on the bike store. It said it was due to install the lock on 10 July 2023. However, it did not provide a specific response in relation to the reported incidents of ASB.
  6. The residents escalated their complaint to stage 2 on 9 July 2023. They said the landlord had failed to act on their reports of ASB. They asked the landlord for a written agreement that it would install locks on the bike shed and bin store. They asked the landlord to install CCTV to the front and rear of the property, due to the ongoing incidents of ASB that started when the block was left insecure for 3 months. They also asked for the landlord to pay compensation to each resident due to the distress and inconvenience caused.
  7. The landlord sent the residents a stage 2 response on 8 August 2023. It said it had checked its systems and found no reports of ASB. It said it installed a locking system on the bike shed on 10 July 2023 as planned and this was within its 60 working days timeframe. It said it would need to carry out a consultation with the residents before it could consider installing CCTV. It said it would carry out a consultation and, if everyone agreed, it could progress with the request for CCTV. It said it would update the residents on 25 August 2023. It also said it had resolved the issue of the dog foul on 6 April 2023 when the carpet was cleaned.
  8. Although the landlord confirmed that it had cleaned the communal carpet and installed the bike store lock, it did not recognise its failure to log and investigate the reported incidents of ASB. It also did not carry out a consultation for the installation of CCTV. The evidence shows a file note dated 13 May 2024 that says the landlord does not offer CCTV in communal areas. However, there is no evidence to suggest that it passed this information onto the residents. The landlord did install a coded lock on the bin store, although this was not done until 7 November 2023.
  9. In summary, the landlord did not log and investigate incidents of ASB reported by the residents of the block in line with its ASB policy. It raised the residents’ expectations unfairly as it said it would carry out a CCTV consultation in its stage 2 response. However, it did not inform them of its blanket policy not to offer CCTV in communal areas. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

A request to review the services provided in relation to the grounds maintenance and communal cleaning service charges.

  1. The lead resident contacted the landlord on 5 June 2023. He asked it to consider refunding all residents 2 months service charge due to poor service.
  2. The residents did not raise the issue of service charges within the group complaint made to the landlord on 21 June 2023. However, they raised concerns as to the general level of service they were receiving for the amount paid, within their request to escalate their complaint on 9 July 2023. They said the landlord’s contractors had not carried out the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance on a regular basis. Instead of asking the residents to raise a separate complaint, the landlord agreed to include the service charge concerns within the original complaint. This was not in line with the Code.
  3. In the stage 2 response dated 8 August 2023 the landlord said it had checked its estate inspection records and not found any cleaning issues. It also said it had spoken with its contractors and they had confirmed that the most recent grounds maintenance visit had been on 27 July 2023. It said it had not found any service failures, but it agreed to undertake more frequent inspections of the block going forward.
  4. Although the landlord said it had not found any evidence of service failure, as this was a stage 2 response, the residents had already exhausted their escalation rights with the landlord. This meant that their only option to escalate their issues was to raise this issue with the Housing Ombudsman. Had the landlord opened a new stage 1 complaint in line with the Code when the new issues were raised, the residents would have had the option to escalate their complaint to stage 2 at this point. This would have provided the opportunity for a more detailed response and may have resolved their complaint without the need for escalation.
  5. It is clear from the evidence provided that the landlord did not fully investigate the residents’ concerns as it gave no meaningful response. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord asked its contractors for the cleaning and grounds maintenance records to compare them to the agreed schedules. Although the evidence shows that communal cleaning services resumed on a regular basis in October 2023, the residents’ concerns were still outstanding in April 2024.
  6. In summary, the landlord did not fully investigate the residents’ concerns in relation to the communal cleaning and grounds maintenance services. It did not respond to the residents’ complaint in line with the code. As a result of these failings, and the level of detriment caused, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration by the landlord in this case.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of communal repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of reports of ASB within the communal area.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a request to review the services provided in relation to the grounds maintenance and communal cleaning service charges.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of the report, the landlord must:
    1. Provide a written apology to the residents for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay each of the 8 group complaint residents compensation of £325. This is made up of:             
      1. £100 for the delays in completing the communal repairs and for the distress and inconvenience caused.
      2. £125 for the landlord’s handling of reports of ASB within the communal area.
      3. £100 for the landlords handling of a request to review the services provided in relation to the grounds maintenance and communal cleaning service charges.
    3. Contact the lead resident in writing to clarify its position in relation to CCTV and to check whether there are any current concerns of ASB within the communal areas. If current concerns are found, the landlord must address the issues in line with its ASB policy. The landlord should send a copy of the letter to the Ombudsman and confirm the lead resident’s response.
    4. Carry out a building and grounds inspection to identify whether there any current cleaning or grounds maintenance issues within the communal areas. A copy of the inspection report should be sent to the lead complainant and to the Ombudsman. The landlord should make the report available to other residents of the building upon request.
  2. The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.