Rooftop Housing Association Limited (202200131)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200131

Rooftop Housing Association Limited

29 November 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window, a seized hot water tap, and that her kitchen was in a state of disrepair.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the main entrance door to the block of flats was insecure and the door entry system was not fit for purpose.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that communal cleaning and maintenance services were not being carried out satisfactorily.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
This report will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2018. She lives in a 1-bedroom ground-floor flat within a larger block of similar purpose-built flats. The landlord leases the flats in the block from the freeholder and there is a managing agent who is responsible for repairs and cleaning of communal areas.
The managing agent is responsible for communal repairs within the block, the landlord is responsible for repairs within individual properties that it rents to residents.
The resident first contacted the landlord in April 2019 to report that communal services which she was paying a service charge for were not being carried out. In August 2019 the resident then reported that homeless people were accessing the block through the insecure main entrance door and were using drugs in the communal areas. The resident continued to raise her concerns regarding these issues and in August 2021 made a formal complaint to the landlord.

Repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy defined broken glazing as an ‘urgent’ repair, kitchen replacement is classified as ‘cyclical’ maintenance.
The policy states that the landlord will carry out urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. Cyclical maintenance is programmed based on stock condition surveys and the estimated lifespan of components.

Fire safety

The Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 requires the responsible person (landlords or building owner) to carry out regular fire risk assessments (FRA) in the common areas of blocks of flats and take action to minimise the risk of fire.
The landlord’s fire safety policy states that it will hold “Accurate and up-to-date records against each property RHG owns and manages”. The policy does not outline the landlord’s procedures for buildings it does not own or manage, but leases properties within.

Antisocial behaviour

The landlord’s ASB policy states that during an ASB investigation the landlord will:
1. Contact complainants in ‘serious’ and ‘minor’ ASB cases within 1 working day.
2. Arrange to interview the complainant within 1 working day for serious ASB cases and 5 working days for minor ASB cases.
3. Carry out a risk assessment and agree an action plan with the complainant.
4. Use a variety of legal and non-legal means to resolve ASB.
5. Work in partnership with other agencies.
The landlord defines drug use and criminal damage as serious ASB.

Complaint procedure

At the time of the resident’s complaint the landlord operated a 3-stage complaint process. The landlord aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 5 working days, stage 2 complaints within 15 working days, and stage 3 complaints within 15 working days.
The complaint procedure stated that, if a resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 or stage 2 response, they had 10 working days to request that the landlord progress the complaint to stage 2 or stage 3.
In July 2023 the landlord reviewed its complaint procedure. It now operates a 2-stage process and states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If a resident is unhappy with a stage 1 response, they have 20 working days to request an escalation to stage 2.

Scope of the investigation

Paragraph 41 (b) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters which do not relate to the actions or omissions of a member of the Scheme. The freeholder and managing agent of the building are not members of the Scheme and therefore this Service does not have jurisdiction to investigate their actions. This assessment therefore focuses on the actions of the landlord.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising. This Service acknowledges that the resident started reporting issues with communal services, the front entrance door and the door entry system in 2019. The resident did not however make a formal complaint to the landlord until August 2021. Therefore, this report will only consider the landlord’s action after February 2021. Events prior to this date are included to provide context only.

Events prior to the period of investigation

In April 2019 the resident complained to the landlord stating that the services for which they were being charged were not being carried out. The landlord logged a formal complaint and raised the issue with the building’s managing agent.
In August 2019 the resident contacted the landlord to express concerns about “people taking drugs on the stairs” outside her property. She stated that the communal front entrance door needed to be fixed as residents’ safety was at risk.
The landlord logged 3 repairs in 2019 for the front door and door entry system. None of the repairs were recorded as completed but were recorded as “not yet completed” or “job cancelled”.
The landlord logged 3 further repairs in 2020 relating to the front door and door entry system. These repairs were recorded as complete.
The landlord has provided a copy of an FRA carried out on the block which is dated 30 October 2020. The assessment identified a number of actions which it classified as a ‘medium’ or ‘moderate’ risk which it defines as requiring remedial action within 3 months. The required actions were:
1. Removal of combustible materials from the service cupboard.
2. Confirmation required that individual flat doors were compliant with fire safety standards.
3. Remedy gaps within the service cupboard which would allow smoke or fire to spread.
4. Confirmation required of the external cladding materials.
5. Removal of items of furniture, rubbish, bikes etc blocking the communal fire escape.

Events during the complaint period

Between March 2021 and August 2021 the landlord logged 4 repairs relating to the front door being insecure and the door entry system not working. One of these repairs was recorded as cancelled, the others were recorded as complete.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord contacted the managing agent and requested fire safety certificates for the block. The managing agent responded on the same day and stated that the testing was “still outstanding as we haven’t been given a copy of the new key following a lock change that [the landlord] undertook”. It stated that it had made several requests for a key but had still not received one. The managing agent said that “and unless this can be resolved quickly, I will have no choice to discuss this with the freeholder since it is now jeopardising the safety of the building”. The landlord asked the managing agent for copies of the certificates on 7 April 2021 as it stated that the access issues had been resolved.
The landlord’s repair log shows that an appointment was requested for a seized hot water tap in the resident’s bathroom on 16 August 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord to make a compliant on 31 August 2021 regarding outstanding repairs, an outstanding FRA, and unsatisfactory cleaning of communal areas and windows. The complaint was addressed to the landlord’s chief executive and stated:
1. There were issues in the communal areas:
  1. Most properties in the building did not have an intercom and so had no way of knowing if someone was at the main entrance.
  2. There had been numerous attempts to ‘fix’ the main door but is remained insecure.
  3. There was “blood and god knows what else” over the wall in the communal areas. There were also burns in the carpets and under the stairs as “homeless people use to smoke heroin”.
  4. In June 2019 she had reported the issues with the communal areas and had been assured that internal decorating would be done by autumn 2019.
  5. There were exposed wires on the exterior of the building. This had also been reported.
  6. The cleaning of communal areas was supposed to be “bi-weekly” but she could not remember the last time it had been done.
  7. The windows were meant to be cleaned quarterly but had never been done.
2. She had concerns regarding fire safety:
  1. there was only 1 fire exit in the 4-storey building so no means of escape if that exit was blocked.
  2. As there was no intercom to the flats, emergency services could not be ‘buzzed in’.
  3. The fire alarms had never been checked in her flat.
3. There were a number of outstanding repairs within her flat:
  1. The kitchen sink was “disgusting” and the kitchen cupboards were “rotting”.
  2. The bathroom tap had “seized up completely and is unusable”.
  3. Her window had been smashed. The landlord had boarded it up but no one had been out to re-glaze it and her flat was “freezing in the winter”.
Internal landlord emails dated between 31 August 2021 and 1 September 2021 demonstrate that complaints relating to communal services and repairs had been received from the resident and 2 other residents of the block. The landlord was arranging to inspect the block in response to the resident’s complaint and had raised the issues with the managing agent who was responsible for carrying out the cleaning and grounds maintenance services.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 September 2021 and asked for a breakdown of her rent and service charges. The landlord responded providing her weekly rent and service charge, the service charge was £25.98 per week.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord contacted the managing agent and requested copies of details of fire alarm testing and emergency lighting service visits for the block. The landlord chased the managing agent for a response on 8 September 2021 and on 9 September 2021 the managing agent responded to say that the last fire alarm and emergency lighting tests were carried out in March 2021 and testing was due to be carried out at the end of the month.
The landlord’s repair log shows that on 3 September 2021 it raised an appointment to inspect the kitchen in the resident’s property. The inspection was recorded as being completed on 13 January 2022.
On 7 September 2021 the landlord received a response from the management company. It addressed the following issues:
1. The door entry system had been smashed and the front door kicked in by a resident “in a drunken rage”. The incident had been reported to the landlord on 20 August 2020 as the landlord was responsible for the repair, the landlord responded to state it would repair the door entry system and door.
2. The building complied with legislation around fire exits and it was not the responsibility of the managing agent to provide further fire exits.
3. The windows were cleaned quarterly and it had received no other complaints about this issue.
4. The cleaning service had been “suspended” on 29 April 2021 as the electrical sockets in the communal areas had been changed to ‘tamper proof sockets’ without the managing agent being made aware. As a result the cleaners could not plug in their equipment. The cleaning service was reinstated in mid-May 2021.
5. The landlord changed the locks to the block in February 2021 without informing the managing agent or providing it with keys. It was therefore reliant on residents to let the cleaners in. It had requested keys on 3 occasions and still had not been provided with any.
6. When the managing agent inspected the block at the end of June 2021 the shrubs and trees had not been overgrown or blocking the path.
7. The managing agent had “repeatedly” asked for a copy of the landlord’s tenancy agreement as it believed that the landlord’s tenants were in breach of the lease agreement that the landlord had agreed to adhere to. It had asked for meetings with the landlord and for the landlord to attend residents’ meetings but this had never been taken up by the landlord.
On 16 September 2021 the landlord provided the resident with the following updates from its repairs team and the management company for the block. This stated:
1. Electricians would be attending on 4 October 2021 to assess the lack of electricity in the hallways.
2. Multiple parts of the front door entry system had been replaced. A further inspection was being carried out on 24 September with a view to overhauling or replacing.
3. A FRA was due to be carried out on 16 September 2021 and the landlord would share this with the resident once it had been received.
4. The landlord had attended to repair the sink but the repair was not completed due to the resident not being at home. It had been rebooked for 4 October 2021.
5. The window cleaning was carried out quarterly and no complaints had been raised previously. The landlord would confirm the window cleaning was being carried out and would increase the frequency if required.
6. The communal cleaning was “suspended 29 April [2021] and reinstated in mid-May”. The cleaners were having “difficulties entering the building” but were now being provided with keys.
7. The management company reported that the shrubs outside the building were in good condition at the end of June 2021. The management company would arrange for a further inspection and the landlord would inspect itself in the meantime on 29 September 2021.
The resident replied to the landlord’s update on 16 September 2021 asking why they had not been advised that the cleaning service had been suspended and why they had been expected to pay full service charges when the cleaning was not carried out. The resident asked for an update on repairs to her property as the kitchen was in a “disgusting” condition and the broken window had not been repaired.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same day and apologised that the issues had “escalated to this point”. It acknowledged that the landlord had let the resident down and that “it is not really good enough from [the landlord]” but that it would do all it could to resolve the issues.
The landlord was due to attend a meeting with the managing agent on 22 September 2021 but the managing agent did not attend. It contacted the managing agent and asked that it provide a “copy of the contracts, timescales and frequencies for cleaning windows, communal areas etc” so that residents knew what they could expect. It also asked when the communal areas were due to be decorated. The landlord stated that it believed that its residents were “due a partial refund of their service charges including their estate management fees” as they had “not received what they are paying for”.
The managing agent responded to the landlord on 22 September 2021 and stated that:
1. It would collate the cleaning details and provide them to the landlord.
2. The managing agent and cleaning team did not have a key.
3. The managing agent would not consider providing a service charge refund because “at no point have we failed to deliver due to issues within our control”.
4. The landlord had “repeatedly breached the Lease Agreement that they hold with the Freeholder” due to it:
  1. Failing to carry out repairs to properties it was responsible for (eg broken window in a flat).
  2. Preventing the use of electrical sockets in communal areas.
  3. Changing the main entrance locks and carrying out repairs, maintenance, and alterations without the “appropriate permissions as per the Lease”.
  4. Failing to act on reports of ASB, Fly-Tipping and Drug-Dealing.
  5. Failing to attend any site meetings.
On 23 September 2021 the landlord contacted its repairs team to see if the repairs to the resident’s kitchen could be brought forward. The repairs team stated that carpentry appointments were in “very high demand” and due to the job being “routine” it was unlikely it would be brought forward. The repairs team advised that it had not received any reports from the resident regarding a broken window. It had however logged the following repair appointments:
1. Seized hot water tap – resident missed appointment on 7 September 2021. A further appointment had been booked for 29 September 2021.
2. Lock on main building entrance door sticking and door entry system not working – completed 20 August 2021.
3. The kitchen worktop and cupboard peeling – appointment booked for 21 January 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response on 23 September 2021. It stated:
1. The landlord had logged all of the reported repairs and provided dates and provided appointments for each repair. The landlord’s Neighbourhood Officer (NO) would attend each appointment to confirm they were done.
2. The FRA did not take place on 16 September 2021 as planned due to the contractor having issues accessing the building. The landlord would advise of the new FRA appointment when it was confirmed with the contractor.
3. The managing agent was setting up a meeting for residents of the block in October 2021 and the landlord had asked that it and its residents be invited to attend.
4. The landlord had requested a copy of the cleaning contracts from the managing agent along with the frequency of cleaning and window cleaning visits. It would provide this to the resident when it was received.
5. The NO would attend after the dates provided to ensure that the cleaning had been carried out.
6. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs service had not been up to standard, “in particular a lack of communication”. It offered £50 compensation.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response on 23 September and stated she did not feel that £50 was “adequate” as she had paid almost £4,000 in service charges to the managing agent since she had moved in and received no services. She also said that the stage 1 complaint response did not address her complaint about the internal decoration.
The landlord’s repair log shows that it logged a repair for the resident’s window on 29 September 2021.
The landlord contacted the managing agent on 30 September 2021 and requested a copy of the fire testing certificates for the block. The landlord chased the managing agent for the certificates on 1 October 2021 and 4 October 2021.
On 4 October 2021 the landlord received a quotation for the supply and installation of a new door entry system. The quote was authorised on 16 June 2022 however the job was recorded at “not yet complete”.
On 8 October 2021 the landlord provided a stage 2 complaint response. This stated:
1. The landlord noted it had not provided clarity to residents about the responsibilities of the landlord, and of the building’s managing agent.
2. The lack of clarity had resulted in the landlord’s complaint team “committing to undertaking repairs we do not have responsibility for”. The landlord apologised for this and acknowledged it had “made the process of resolving issues far more complex that it should have been” and “resulted in…repairs not having been carried out as they should”.
3. To address the lack of clarity, the landlord would be meeting the managing agent on 14 October 2021 and would attend future resident’s meetings.
4. The outstanding repairs to the door entry system and overgrown greenery had been raised with the managing agent who was responsible for addressing them.
5. The landlord had asked the building owner to provide a copy of its most recent FRA. If the owner did not provide a copy the landlord would commission an assessment.
6. The landlord understood that the cleaners had been having problems accessing the building due to the door entry system and issues accessing a power supply. The landlord would raise this with the managing agent.
7. The landlord’s tenancy enforcement officer (TEO) would agree actions regarding the reported ASB to attempt to resolve the issue.
8. The landlord increased its compensation offer to £100.

Events after the final complaint response

The resident emailed the landlord on 18 October 2021 and asked for an update following the meeting that was due to take place with the managing agent on 14 October 2021. She also asked for updates on the door entry system repair and FRA. She requested an update again on 26 October 2021 and 3 November 2021 but was not provided with one.
The landlord’s repair log shows that the seized hot water tap in the resident’s bathroom was repaired on 19 October 2021.
The landlord’s repair log shows that it repaired the resident’s broken window glazing on 23 January 2022.
The landlord requested a copy of the current FRA for the block from the managing agent on 3 February 2022 and chased for a response on 7 February 2022. The managing agent stated that it would provide a copy of the FRA but this Service has not seen evidence to confirm when this was provided.
The landlord’s repair log shows that the resident’s kitchen was renewed on 28 February 2022.
In March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s service charge team to again express dissatisfaction regarding the communal cleaning. She said that the cleaners still could not access the building as the door entry system did not work and could not use the sockets in the communal corridors. She stated that the residents themselves cleaned outside their own properties and had done since they moved in. The resident went on to say that:
1. the communal entrance door was “constantly being kicked in and vandalised”
2. there were “homeless people smoking heroin under the stairs”
3. there had not been a FRA completed “for as long as I’ve been here”.
On 24 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated she had still not received an update on any of the outstanding issues following the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response.
On 8 April 2022 the landlord authorised a quote for the supply and installation of a new front door. The job was recorded as “cancelled”.
The landlord has advised this Service, in response to an information request, that it replaced the front entrance door in August 2022. It has not provided any information regarding repair or replacement of the door entry system as requested by this Service.
The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of the FRA for the block carried out on 22 September 2022 which highlighted the following issues:
1. Fire action notices provided “inappropriate/incorrect advice”.
2. Combustible materials were stored in communal areas.
3. There was furniture blocking stairwells.
This Service requested from the landlord copies of specifications for communal cleaning and grounds maintenance services and attendance logs showing when these services were carried out. The landlord has advised that it had requested this information from the managing agent but it had not been supplied.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window, a seized hot water tap, and that her kitchen was in a state of disrepair.

The resident stated in her stage 1 complaint that there were outstanding repairs to a broken window and a seized tap in the bathroom. She also stated that her kitchen was in a poor state of repair and required replacement.
The resident reported the seized hot water tap in her bathroom on 16 August 2021. The repair was resolved on 19 October 2021, two months later. While the resident did have use of hot water elsewhere in the property, the landlord’s response time was double the timeframe outlined in its own repair policy. This Service does not consider it reasonable that it took the landlord 2 months to respond to this repair and this was a failing.
This Service has not seen evidence that demonstrates that the resident reported issues with the condition of her kitchen prior to her stage 1 complaint on 31 August 2021. The landlord inspection the kitchen in January 2022 and replaced it on 28 February 2022. As kitchen replacement is classed as a cyclical repair and would not typically be carried out as a responsive repair, we consider that the replacement was completed in a reasonable timeframe.
This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord was aware of the resident’s broken window glazing prior to her complaint in August 2021, though the resident states that this had been previously reported. The landlord raised a repair for the glazing on 29 September 2021, one month after the complaint, and the glazing was repaired on 23 January 2022. This Service considers that 145 days to repair the window was an unreasonable delay.
Overall, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of repairs to the resident’s window and tap within the timeframe outlined in its own policy. It did however replace the resident’s kitchen within 6 months and we consider this reasonable for cyclical repairs. The Service considers that the repair delays amount to a service failure as they caused limited distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the main entrance door to the block of flats was insecure and the door entry system was not fit for purpose.

It is important to point out that the resident’s relationship is with the landlord, not the managing agent or the owner of the building. The landlord was not responsible for carrying out repairs to the communal areas, this was the freeholder’s responsibility, carried out by the managing agent. The landlord’s responsibility was to pass on the residents’ queries to the managing agent and to chase the managing agent for updates in a timely manner.
The resident reported to the landlord in 2019 that the front entrance to the block was insecure and homeless people were accessing the building. Residents of the block continued to report issues with the door and between March and August 2021 repairs were carried out on 3 occasions. The repairs did not provide a lasting resolution to the problem and the resident stated in her August 2021 complaint that the door was still insecure and residents were unable to use the door entry system.
It is of concern to this Service that the landlord was aware that the communal areas of the block were insecure and that they were being used by homeless people to take illicit drugs. Yet, we have not seen evidence that the landlord took any decisive action to safeguard its residents.
In September 2021 the managing agent advised the landlord that the damage to the communal front door and door entry system had been caused by one of the landlord’s tenants and that therefore its repair was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord inspected the door entry system that month and in October 2021 it received a quote to replace the system. The landlord did not authorise the work until 8 months later in June 2022 and the landlord has not confirmed that this work has been completed.
In April 2022 the landlord authorised an quote to supply and install a new front door but this work was later cancelled. It is unclear why the work was cancelled. The landlord has stated that it replaced the door in August 2022, a year after the resident’s formal complaint.
The landlord has acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response in October 2021 that there had been a lack of clarity about the responsibilities of the landlord and the managing agent. It has accepted that this has resulted in delays to repairs. This Service does not consider that it is reasonable that it took the landlord a year to make the communal areas of the building secure. The delay caused the resident clear distress and inconvenience and she was forced to invest an unnecessary amount of time and trouble in requesting updates from the landlord.
Overall, the landlord has failed to liaise effectively with the managing agent to ensure that the main entrance door was secure and that the door entry system was fit for purpose. This was a serious failing on behalf of the landlord and has led to the block being intermittently insecure for a period of more than 18 months, this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the cleaning of communal areas, window cleaning, and grounds maintenance, were not being carried out satisfactorily.

As previously addressed, the communal services such as cleaning, window cleaning, and grounds maintenance were not carried out by the landlord and were the responsibility of the freeholder, carried out by the managing agent. The landlord’s responsibility was to actively liaise with the managing agent to ensure that the services were carried out satisfactorily.
There has clearly been a breakdown in communication between the landlord and the managing agent. Communications from the managing agent to the landlord display frustration at the landlord for failing to address concerns the managing agent has raised.
The managing agent stated that the landlord had carried out a number of works, including replacing the front door lock in February 2021 and installing tamper-proof electric sockets in March 2021, without the knowledge or authorisation of the managing agent or freeholder. The managing agent stated that these works had prevented the cleaners from entering the building and from plugging in and using their equipment and that it therefore would not provide a service charge refund.
This Service has seen evidence that the managing agent contacted the landlord in March 2021 stating that it did not have a key to the building despite having repeatedly requested one. The managing agent again requested a key for the building on 22 September 2021. We consider that it is reasonable that the managing agent would not agree to provide a refund for service when it had been prevented from carrying them out by the landlord’s actions or inactions.
The resident’s relationship is with the landlord and the resident pays the landlord a service charge for the completion of communal services. The landlord then pays the managing agent for the completion of these services. The landlord’s lack of effective communication with the managing agent has impeded the managing agent’s contractors from carrying out the cleaning which residents were paying for and this was a failing of the landlord.
The landlord advised the resident following her stage 1 complaint that it would be inspecting the block to ascertain whether the cleaning and grounds maintenance were being carried out satisfactorily. This Service has not seen evidence that this inspection was carried out or what the outcome was. The landlord’s failure to do what it said it would do was a missed opportunity to demonstrate to the resident that it took her concerns seriously.
Communications between the landlord and resident in March 2022 demonstrate that the resident still maintained that the cleaning was not being completed as the cleaners could not access the building or use the tamper-proof sockets. It is not acceptable that the resident has been paying for services that have not been satisfactorily carried out for such a prolonged period. An order for compensation has therefore been made.
Overall, we consider that the landlord has failed to effectively liaise with the managing agent to ensure that its residents were receiving the standard of services they were paying for. The landlord has frustrated the situation by carrying out repairs and alterations to the building which prevented the managing agent and its contractors from entering the building and carrying out their services.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).

This Service has seen evidence that the resident began reporting ASB in 2019 shortly after moving into the property. She reported that drugs were being used in communal areas by homeless people who were entering the block.
The resident again raised the issue of homeless people using heroin in the communal stairwells during her stage 1 complaint in August 2021. The landlord finally acknowledged the issue in its stage 2 complaint response in October 2021 and assured the resident that its TEO would contact her to agree actions to attempt to resolve the ASB. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord fulfilled this undertaking and this reasonably damaged the resident’s trust in the landlord.
The landlord has advised this Service that it has not investigated any reports of ASB or taken any actions relating to ASB. This is of serious concern.
The landlord’s own ASB policy defines drug use as ‘serious’ ASB. The policy states that it will respond to such reports within 1 working day and carry out an interview within a further working day.
Drug use within the block exposed residents to potential risks such as needle-stick injury and contact with bodily fluids. These are serious health and safety hazards and it is of concern that this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports that there was blood and other substances on the walls in communal areas.
The landlord has failed to carry out interviews or risk assessments and has failed to agree an action plan with the resident. In fact, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns regarding this issue at all, even after her formal complaint. This failure to respond caused the resident severe distress over a prolonged period. This is a serious failing and is unacceptable.
The landlord has shown complete disregard for its own policies and accepted good practice in ASB management.
At a minimum this Service would have expected the landlord to:
1. Acknowledge the resident’s reports and carry out an interview and risk assessment.
2. Agree an action plan with the resident.
3. Liaise with the managing agent regarding the issue and ensure the block was secure.
4. Work in partnership with the police.
5. Update the resident about actions taken and signpost for further support.
In March 2022, after the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, the resident continued to report issues with homeless drug users accessing the block. The issue was not addressed and so the resident continued to experience alarm and distress.
Overall, the landlord failed to take any action regarding the reported ASB. It completely disregarded its own policy and good practice and failed to provide any form of ASB service. The landlord’s failure to act exposed its residents to serious hazards and caused severe distress over a prolonged period. Therefore, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.

The responsibility for carrying out FRAs belongs to the freeholder of the building but the landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it can demonstrate compliance with fire safety legislation.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that demonstrates that FRAs were carried out on the block on 30 October 2020 and 22 September 2022. It is unclear when the landlord obtained copies of these documents as this Service has seen evidence that it repeatedly requested these from the managing agent during the timeframe of the investigation and did not receive a satisfactory response.
It is noted with concern that in March 2021, due to the landlord changing the locks on the blocks communal entrance without the knowledge of the managing agent or permission of the freeholder, the managing agent was unable to carry out regular testing of the fire alarm and emergency lighting systems. As the managing agent rightly stated, this put residents’ safety was at risk. This was a serious failing.
In September 2021 the landlord advised the resident that a FRA was due to be completed that month but had not taken place as the contractor could not access the building. The FRA completed in October 2020 recommended that another FRA be carried out 2 years later, this was done in September 2022. There is no indication that any assessments were attempted in 2021. It is therefore concerning that the landlord told the resident that an assessment would be carried out during that period and mismanaged her expectations.
The resident first raised concerns regarding fire safety in her stage 1 complaint in August 2021. At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response in October 2021 it was still unable to provide the assurances requested by the resident. The resident was still requesting confirmation from the landlord that the building was compliant with fire safety legislation in March 2022. This was a failure by the landlord which caused the resident to invest unnecessary time and trouble in pursuing a response.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord requested FRA documentation and fire alarm and emergency lighting testing certificates from the managing agent on 4 occasions. No evidence has been seen that demonstrates that the managing agent provided the requested documents during the period investigated. While the landlord did chase the managing agent for a response, no evidence has been seen that it was proactive in ensuring that it could demonstrate to its residents that the building was compliant with fire safety legislation.
Overall, while the landlord is not responsible for carrying out FRAs for this block, this does not absolve it of all responsibility in relation to the health and safety of its residents. While the landlord has now been able to provide this Service with evidence that the block is compliant with fire safety regulations, it was unable to provide the resident with this information during her complaint. The landlord’s poor communication, co-operation, and oversight on this issue has caused the resident distress, inconvenience, time and trouble. Most importantly, the landlord was unable for a significant period of time to demonstrate to its resident that a building in which it holds an interest, was compliant with health and safety regulations. Therefore, there was maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within the 10-working day timeframe outlined in its complaint policy. This was a failing.
The stage 1 complaint response also failed to address all the issues raised by the resident. It provided a response to the resident’s concerns about repairs, fire safety and cleaning of communal areas, it did not however mention her complaints about the communal decorating or ASB.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s complaint policy states that residents have a period of 20 working days following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response in which to request an escalation. This Service has an expectation as per the Complaint Handling Code that the landlord will escalate a complaint (unless it can provide good reason not to do so). The landlord’s imposition of a 20-working day timeframe in which to request an escalation is arbitrary and unnecessarily limiting. A recommendation has been made regarding this.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response sent in October 2021 acknowledged and apologised for several failings, this was appropriate considering the landlord’s failings identified by this Service. It also told the resident that, to resolve the issues she was experiencing, it:
1. had asked the managing agent to carry out repairs in communal areas
2. had requested a copy of the most recent FRA from the managing agent
3. had raised the issue of communal cleaning with the managing agent
4. would contact her to agree actions to resolve the ASB.
Following the stage 2 complaint response the resident contacted the landlord on 5 occasions between October 2021 and March 2022 asking for an update on the actions that it had said it would take. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s emails or provided her with an update on what progress had been made to resolve the issues she had raised. This failure to communicate effectively with the resident caused her distress and unnecessary time and trouble.
The primary purpose of a complaints process is, as outlined in the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, “put things right”. The resident continues to report issues with communal services and with ASB, therefore the complaint process has not successfully served its purpose.
This Service does not consider that the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation provides proportionate redress for the lack of service provision, and distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident.
In respect of the service charges, the resident was paying £25.75 per week for “estate management…including communal cleaning”, £2.61 per week for window cleaning, and 27 pence per week for grounds maintenance. The landlord has been unable to provide evidence that these Services have been carried out or that it has effectively monitored their provision. Therefore, this Service considers the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £1,013 which comprises:
1. 50% of the estate management and cleaning fee for the period of 1 February 2021 to 8 October 2021.
2. 100% of the window cleaning fee for the same period.
Further compensation has also been ordered for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble due to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, ASB and the resident’s complaint.
The landlord failed to address all the issues raised by the resident in its complaint responses. It failed to carry out the actions it said it would take, failed to update the resident, and failed to resolve the substantive issues raised. therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a broken window, a seized hot water tap, and that her kitchen was in a state of disrepair.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that the main entrance door to the block of flats was insecure and the door entry system was not fit for purpose.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that communal cleaning and maintenance services were not being carried out satisfactorily.
4. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
5. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
6. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s reports of repairs to the resident’s window and tap within the timeframe outlined in its own policy. It did however replace the resident’s kitchen within 6 months which was reasonable.
The landlord failed to ensure that the managing agent carried out its repair responsibilities in relation to the communal entrance door and door entry system. As a result the door was insecure and the door entry system was not functioning. This has led to the block being insecure for long intervals over a period of more than 18 months.
The landlord failed to carry out inspections to satisfy itself that communal services which were being paid for by its residents were being carried out to a reasonable standard. The landlord changed the locks on the communal entrance and did not provide the managing agent with a key preventing cleaning contractors from entering the building. It also installed tamper-proof covers to the sockets in the communal areas which prevented cleaning contractors from plugging in their appliances.
The landlord has acknowledged that it has carried out no investigations and completed no actions following a number of reports of serious ASB by the resident.
The landlord failed effectively liaise with the managing agent to ensure that the block was compliant with statutory legislation within a timely manner. It was unable to demonstrate to its resident that a building in which it holds an interest, was compliant with health and safety regulations for a prolonged period.
The landlord failed to address all the issues raised by the resident in its formal complaint responses. It also failed to carry out the actions it said it would in order and as a result has not resolved the issues raised by the resident. The compensation offered by the landlord did not reflect the landlord’s failings and the impact they had on the resident.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £2,263 compensation comprising:
1. £100 for inconvenience caused by delays in resolving repairs to the resident’s hot water tap and broken window.
2. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to respond to the resident’s reports that that the main entrance door to the block of flats was insecure and the door entry system was not fit for purpose.
3. £1,013 for cleaning and other communal services not being provided.
4. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that communal cleaning and maintenance services were not being carried out satisfactorily.
5. £500 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s reports of ASB.
6. £150 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s fire safety concerns.
7. £200 for time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
8. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £100. If the landlord has already paid the resident £100 this should be deducted from the £2,263 ordered.
If it has not done so within the past 6 months, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to ensure that an inspection of the door entry system is carried out. The inspection may be completed by the managing agent or landlord depending on the terms of the lease and management agreement. The inspection should consider whether the system is fit for purpose and whether it requires replacement. The landlord should advise the resident and this Service about its intentions regarding the door entry system within 4 weeks of the inspection being completed.
The landlord to liaise with the managing agent and, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, provide the resident with:
1. A schedule explaining when communal services such as cleaning, grounds maintenance, window cleaning, and safety testing should be completed in the block.
2. A plan for how the landlord intends to monitor the communal services to ensure that residents are receiving the services they pay for.
3. A plan for how the landlord intends to ensure that the hazards identified on the FRAs in 2020 and 2022 are addressed.
Within 2 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the ongoing ASB. The landlord should:
1. Carry out a risk assessment.
2. Draw up an action plan in agreement with the resident.
3. Agree a frequency of contact and update the resident in line with this.

Recommendations

Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord to carry out a review of its complaint policy with consideration of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It should particularly consider whether the requirement that a resident escalate a complaint within 20 working days is unreasonably restrictive.
The landlord to arrange and attend regular meetings with residents and the managing agent of the block to build a more effective relationship and ensure it is responsive to issues.