Thrive Homes Limited (202318487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318487

Thrive Homes Limited

26 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of and communication about cleaning, repair, and maintenance of the communal areas and fixtures in the resident’s block of flats.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord.
3. The resident reported a wide range of repair issues in the block communal area, such as a faulty communal front door entry system and an overflowing bin from 2022. He also reported poor cleaning standards. The evidence shows the landlord raised jobs for some issues, such as the door system, but evidence of completion of all the issues has not been provided.
4. The resident’s wife (his representative) raised a complaint on 22 December 2022 due to concerns about a leaking overflow pipe, an overflowing bin next to the block entrance, and a defective communal door entry system, which broke regularly causing deliveries to go missing and difficulty allowing entry into the block. She added to the complaint the next day saying the communal cleaning was poor, and the anti-slip paint was worn.
5. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 11 January 2023. It apologised for the service received and inconvenience to the resident. It provided updates explaining repairs to the communal door were booked for 12 January and the overflow pipe on 30 January 2023. It would inspect the paint issue by 31 January 2023. It said it had addressed the cleaning issue, including by requiring cleaners to sign an attendance sheet and monitoring the cleaning over the next 3 months. It said it would provide an update on the door by 20 January and the rest of the issues by 31 January 2023. Once all the repairs were complete, it would offer compensation to reflect the time taken to complete the works and the impact on the resident. It said it had learnt lessons such as its failure to keep the resident updated.
6. The resident remained dissatisfied, and his representative escalated his complaint on 21 February 2023. He had not been contacted about the repairs and the cleaning sheet had not been put in his block. His original complaints were also repeated.
7. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 5 April 2023 upholding the complaint due to the repair delays and its poor communication. It explained it was raising jobs for a new lock and door repair. It said it had inspected the overflow pipe leak and met with the resident. It confirmed the cleaning sheet was now in the block. It apologised for its service failures and the impact on the resident. It accepted it could have updated the resident better. The landlord committed to resolving the outstanding repairs by 21 April 2023 along with fortnightly cleaning inspections. It set out lessons learnt including its commitment to keeping residents better informed of outstanding repairs.
8. The resident’s representative brought his complaint to the Ombudsman on 23 August 2023. He is seeking compensation from the landlord and resolution of the outstanding repairs such as the door entry system and the anti-slip paint.
9. Information from the landlord and the resident shows it has continued to arrange repairs up to the time of this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The resident has complained the landlord’s actions have caused his and his wife’s health to deteriorate. The Ombudsman is unable to assess the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim if he considers that their health has been affected by the landlord’s actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek legal advice if he wants to pursue this option. In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme, this issue is more effectively resolved and remedied through the courts. It will not be considered in this report.
11. The evidence shows the resident raised further concerns about repairs, which the landlord declined to progress on 22 July 2024. The Service wrote to the landlord on 5 March 2025 asking that it progress the new complaint if the resident still wishes to pursue it. This new complaint is not something the Service can investigate at this stage as the landlord needs to have the opportunity to respond. If the resident remains dissatisfied once the issues have been through the landlord’s complaints process, he can bring the new matters to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Handling of and communication about cleaning, repair, and maintenance of the communal areas and fixtures in the resident’s block of flats

12. The resident’s lease states the landlord will keep in good repair and condition main structure such as the communal door entry system, door, and drainpipes. It will also clean, tidy and paint the communal areas.
13. The landlord’s communal area standards state it will maintain a clean, safe, well maintained communal areas. It will check shared areas regularly to ensure it is meeting health and safety standards. Its communal cleaning policy on its website says outside bin areas should be “clean, tidy and free of litter”.
14. The resident’s representative complained about issues with the communal entrance door including a faulty buzzer system so visitors, such as postal workers, could not gain entry. In its stage 1 response of 11 January 2023 the landlord said its contractor was due to visit on 12 January 2023 and the resident would be updated by 20 January. This demonstrated a willingness to resolve the issue, but there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident as promised. This was unreasonable and a failing to follow through its complaints outcome.
15. The evidence supplied shows that up until November 2023 residents made regular reports about the lock and buzzer. The landlord has told the Service it is phasing out the current door entry system and has set up a team for door entry system replacements. The resident’s representative has told the Service the door entry system is still in place, continues to need repairs and were unaware of plans to overhaul the system. No evidence of updates to the resident about the landlord’s intentions have been seen. Had it done so would have shown it was taking a proactive approach to the overarching issues and its repair obligations.
16. The resident’s representative complained of a leaking overflow pipe in December 2022 after originally reporting it in May 2022. The landlord initially said the issue was unresolved, a repair was booked on 30 January, and the resident would be updated by 31 January 2023. It said since September 2022, it had made 4 no access visits to the property (with the pipe) which was the source of the problem. The landlord said the access issues contributed to the repair resolution. Therefore, it was out of its control.
17. While we have not seen evidence of the January 2023 visit, the landlord’s final complaint response says the repairs team inspected the leak and met with the resident on an unspecified date. It therefore had appropriately arranged the January visit and followed up with the resident. However it unreasonably failed to acknowledge the significant delay or take a proactive approach to the repair with for example a timeframe or next steps towards resolution.
18. The resident originally complained about poor cleaning standards. The landlord initially said on 11 January 2023 it had addressed the issue with its contractors, asked cleaners to sign an attendance sheet, it would monitor the cleaning over the quarter, and the resident would be refunded for missed cleaning visits. This demonstrated the landlord’s commitment to resolving the complaint.
19. In the landlord’s final complaint response of 5 April 2023 it said the cleaning sheets were now in the block but failed to address cleaning standards. It should have done so because the resident had explained she still had concerns about the quality of the cleaning. The evidence shows the landlord was monitoring the cleaning as it said it would, but it failed to say anything about this in its complaint response. Accordingly, its response to the issue was incomplete.
20. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports about the anti-slip paint wearing away by arranging an inspection by 31 January 2023. An internal email on 25 January 2023 states the floor was not a safety risk. Without committing to a recoat, it said any such recoat would need to be applied in the warmer months for “good adhesion”. The evidence does not show the landlord updating the resident with a decision on the issue, which meant it inappropriately failed to follow through on its stage 1 outcome to do so.
21. Thereafter, the landlord unreasonably failed to address the anti-slip paint at all in its final complaint response. This was unreasonable but also a failure to resolve the complaint issue. Further, it meant it did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“Code”) to address a complaint fully.
22. The resident’s complaint about the overflowing bins, and the associated smells were not responded to at stage 1 or 2 by the landlord. Again it inappropriately failed to comply with the Code to address the resident’s complaint fully. While the resident’s representative has told the Service the issue has since been addressed, the landlord’s omission was a missed chance to show its commitment to resolving the issue, apply its own policies and build on its relationship with the resident.
23. The resident’s representative complained about the landlord’s poor communication, including the stress caused by repeatedly having to chase repairs and updates. The landlord’s initial complaint response acknowledged it had failed to follow best practice with reported issues and not kept the resident informed with enquiries or actions. Its final response also upheld this aspect of the complaint saying it had learnt lessons and improved its customer update process to keep residents informed of outstanding jobs. This was appropriate and showed it was trying to put right its mistakes.
24. In its first complaint response the landlord said it would offer compensation for its failings once the repairs were complete. There is no evidence it did so, and it has explained to the Service it recognises this as a service failure. It has also said it has taken steps to learn from its mistakes including by having in place a new process to monitor complaint response outcomes. Nonetheless, its failure to follow through with its compensation was unreasonable given that the complaint had been upheld at both stages. That aside, it has taken appropriate steps to prevent a repetition of a similar occurrence.
25. Overall, the landlord appropriately apologised, showed it had learnt lessons, such as by improving customer update processes, and engaged with elements of the complaint. However, it failed to follow through on outcomes such as the compensation review, update on repairs including the door, or progress matters to resolution for example the anti-slip paint.  These failings, which taken together, caused a serious detriment to the resident, and means the complaint was not resolved.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of and communication about cleaning, repair, and maintenance of the communal areas and fixtures in the resident’s block of flats.

Orders

27. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident £450 for its handling of and communication about cleaning, repair, and maintenance of the communal areas and fixtures as well as the distress and inconvenience caused.
28. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must:
    1. Update the resident about its current plans and timescales for addressing the ongoing and repeated door entry problems, including its replacement.
    2. Inspect the overflow pipe and anti-slip paint and based on its assessment it must either confirm there are no remaining unresolved issues or provide a schedule of works by which it will complete any outstanding work within 12 weeks of this report. If the resident subsequently has concerns about the landlord’s adherence to its schedule or the manner in which it updates him about any changes, he will be entitled to raise a new formal complaint with the landlord and then bring his complaint back to the Ombudsman.
    3. Evidence of compliance with these orders must be provided to the Service by their respective deadlines.