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

Longhurst Group Limited (202207920)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207920 & 202215071

Longhurst Group Limited

30 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. Concerns about communal cleaning, repairs, and garden maintenance.
    2. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property.
  2. The resident raised a previous complaint to this service about the landlord’s response to repairs and cleaning of communal areas, within the building that the resident lives in. In November 2021, the Ombudsman issued a finding of service failure in respect of the resident’s previous complaint. The Ombudsman had in that previous complaint, made a recommendation for the landlord to provide a schedule of outstanding works and to share this with the resident. This previous report had been issued in November 2021. The resident has stated there has been no improvement since October 2021.
  3. On 31 January 2022, the resident made a complaint of poor communication to the landlord. She stated that it had not responded to her previous phone calls and emails. The resident had been trying to get an update about outstanding repairs and the cleaning of communal areas of the building. For the following months, the resident then made further phone calls to the landlord. She also visited its offices in person trying to get an update on her complaint. On 29 September 2022, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response about its poor communication. It apologised to the resident and provided her compensation of £250.
  1. On 12 July 2022, the resident raised a further complaint with the landlord. She stated she remained dissatisfied with the communal cleaning of the property. The resident was also unhappy with the standards of its grounds maintenance. The resident followed up her complaint by providing more specific information. She explained there was a lack of window cleaning, communal lighting had not been replaced and the garden being overgrown.
  2. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response it acknowledged its delay in carrying out the garden maintenance. It also accepted its delay in fitting new lightbulbs in communal areas. It stated it would clean specified areas following recent inspections. It awarded the resident £25 for taking the time to report her complaint. The resident remained dissatisfied and requested the escalation of her complaint. She stated the landlord had not carried out the garden maintenance. It had also not completed the lighting repairs. The resident added that the communal cleaning had not improved since October 2021.
  3. The resident made her specific complaints to the landlord as follows:
    1. There was a lack of cleaning of communal areas.
    2. Window cleaning had not been completed every six months as required.
    3. Ten communal light bulbs remained out. The two light bulbs at the front entrance had not been replaced since February 2022.
    4. The garden was overgrown with bushes that required cutting back and trimming and trees which required pruning. The garden required clearing up and maintenance.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 31 March 2022 to state that the cleaning of communal areas remained poor. There had been no clearing of the garden. The ivy remained a problem. She also stated that the windows had not been cleaned.
  5. At the final stage of the landlord’s complaints process, it offered the resident a further £225 compensation. This was for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by concerns about the cleaning and delays in carrying out the repairs. It also completed the repairs to the lighting. It agreed to carry out a deep clean of the communal areas and explained its planned response to the maintenance of the communal garden.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response. She brought her complaint to the Ombudsman on 30 September 2022. She wanted an improvement to the communal cleaning. She also wanted a better response to the repairs and maintenance of the building. The resident desired for the landlord to improve its communication and complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep shared areas of the building in good repair which includes shared entrances, halls, passageways, and stairways. As well as shared yards, electric lighting and rubbish chutes or bin stores. It provides a breakdown of the resident’s service charge which includes covering the following:
    1. Caretaker costs.
    2. Communal garden maintenance.
    3. Communal repairs – lighting/joinery.
    4. Window cleaning.
    5. Cleaning materials.
  2. Within the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, it states that it will provide appointed routine repairs within 28 calendar days maximum.
  3. The landlord has a two-stage complaint policy. At stage one it states it will respond to the resident’s complaint in writing within ten working days. It will then respond to the resident’s stage two complaint within 20 working days.

Scope of investigation

  1. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether the amount of service charge the resident is paying is reasonable. If this is something the resident wishes to seek as part of her complaint. She is directed to the First Tier Tribunal. This service will, however, consider the landlord’s handling of her complaint about its response to the communal cleaning, maintenance, and outstanding repairs.

Level of provision for communal cleaning, repairs, and garden maintenance.

  1. The landlord has provided this service with its signed weekly cleaning logs between October 2021 and February 2022. The evidence shows the logs are visible for residents to see in the building. This is good practice as it allows residents to know when cleaning has taken place. The landlord has also provided its cleaning inspection results dated 15 November 2021 which it passed. It then failed its cleaning inspection on 12 January 2021 stating there were signs that the building had not been cleaned for two weeks. It agreed to carry out another inspection the following month. It carried this further inspection on 4 February 2022 which it also failed. The resident was included in this inspection.  It was appropriate that the landlord carried out these inspections to satisfy itself that the cleaning had been carried out to an acceptable standard. It was also positive that the resident had the opportunity to be part of the inspections. However, the landlord’s response to the failings was to carry out further inspections. This in the Ombudsman’s view did not go far enough to seek to resolve the resident’s concerns. The landlord could have taken a more proactive approach by working with its contractor to address the failings it had identified and provide assurance to the resident that the issues had been rectified.
  2. Between February 2022 and August 2022, the resident made multiple complaints about the cleanliness of the communal areas. The landlord did not respond to the resident during this period. It has provided this service with no evidence of what it did to address its failed cleaning inspection. The landlord did provide an explanation on 26 October 2022 in its stage two complaint response. It explained the limitations available by the cleaning service provided. It stated further cleaning as requested by the resident would come at an increase in the cost-of-service charge. The landlord stated that due to the increase in the cost of living it would not seek to impose this charge upon the residents of the building. It agreed that it would reconsider the opinion of the residents when the cleaning contracts were up for renewal. The landlord is entitled to decide what services it provides for residents and how it provides these services, provided it meets its legal obligations and follows industry best practice. However, this information should have been provided to the resident sooner. It should not have taken seven months to provide this information to the resident. The landlord provided suitable redress in respect of the communal cleaning by providing a deep clean to the communal areas, including the areas identified by the resident. This service was carried out at no extra cost to the residents.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 31 March 2021 that the windows had not been cleaned. She followed this up with the landlord again on 20 April 2022. The landlord responded that it would look into this for the resident. The landlord then updated the resident that the windows would be cleaned on 23 May 2022. It stated that it would attend to make sure that the contractor cleaned the windows to the required standard. In July 2022, the resident reported to the landlord that the windows remained filthy. The resident states the windows were not cleaned in May 2022 and the landlord’s reports say that they were. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence, aside from the landlord’s records to confirm whether the windows were or were not cleaned in May 2022. The Ombudsman’s approach to reviewing evidence where there are conflicting accounts of what happened, with no evidence to support either account means we cannot say with certainty which version of events is correct. The landlord has however, acted reasonably by investigating the resident’s concerns by checking its records and providing the resident with the next date the windows were due to be cleaned, this being November 2022. Therefore, the landlord acted appropriately in its response to the window cleaning and acted in line with its obligations to the resident.
  4. The resident notified the landlord on 31 March 2022 that the communal garden still required clearing and the ivy was still causing a problem. The evidence provided by the landlord shows it carried out four garden inspections between 15 November 2021 and 18 July 2022. On 28 June 2022 the resident told the landlord that the bushes were overgrown. The landlord stated it would raise this with the contractor. The landlord advised the resident that it would carry this work out after the nesting season which it stated was February through to August. This was the right information to give the resident. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it apologised that it had delayed trimming the overgrown bush. It blamed the further delay on the maintenance team awaiting new fobs. The landlord stated in its final response to the resident that it had cut the bushes back. It stated it would not prune the trees until September 2023 and explained this was to keep the service charge down and it did not wish for residents to incur any further charges. This work is funded through the resident’s service charge, so would be passed on to the residents. Social landlords are expected to manage their limited resources effectively to the benefit of all their residents and it is reasonable for landlords to consider the potential costs of works to residents when deciding when to schedule non urgent maintenance. It is in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a reasonable explanation as to why it would not carry out the further works requested.
  5. On 8 June 2022 the resident first reported that ten lightbulbs in communal areas were out. The landlord’s repairs log reports that this repair was completed on 15 June 2022. This is a routine repair that should take 28 days in line with the landlord’s repair policy. It recorded in its own log that it met this deadline but the resident continued to report that the light bulbs were out. In both of its complaint responses to the resident, the landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in replacing the lightbulbs. The repair was complete by the time the landlord provided its second stage complaint response on 26 October 2022. Overall, there was an unreasonable delay in the landlord replacing the lightbulbs and the resident had to spend time chasing for this to be done.
  6. The landlord recognised that there had been errors in its service and awarded the resident £100 in its stage two complaint response on 26 October 2022 for the service issues she experienced. An additional £100 was awarded for the inconvenience caused by the resident having to chase the landlord for updates. This amount is in line with the landlord’s remedies guidance, within its compensation policy where it recognises service failure. An example of this is where it fails to meet service standards for actions but where the failure has no significant impact. This is also in line with the Ombudsman’s own complaint handling code (published on our website). In the Ombudsman’s view, for the reasons outlined, the landlord has provided the resident with reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the provision for communal cleaning, repairs, and garden maintenance and it does not need to do anything further regarding this matter. Going forward, the landlord should continue to monitor the standard of cleaning and grounds maintenance on the estate and it should address any issues with its contractor at the first opportunity to prevent issues from escalating.

The associated complaint.

  1. The resident made her first complaint to the landlord about its delay in communication with her on 31 January 2022. The resident visited the landlord in person on 12 April 2022 to ask for a response to her complaint. The resident then telephoned the landlord on 25 April 2022 asking for the landlord to respond. The landlord first contacted the resident on 8 July 2022 about her complaint. It then provided its stage one complaint response on 11 July 2022. This was 111 working days after the resident complained. The landlord’s own complaint policy states it will respond to a stage one complaint within ten working days. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code also states this. There was no explanation given for this significant delay and was an inappropriate response time. It was right that it apologised to the resident for this delay and awarded compensation to the resident. The level of compensation awarded will be addressed later in the assessment.
  2. The resident requested this complaint be escalated on 29 July 2022. The landlord took 43 working days, providing its stage two complaint response on 29 September 2022. This delay was a poor response, especially when the complaint itself was about the delay and poor communication by the landlord. In line with its own complaints policy, it should have responded to the resident within 20 working days. The landlord was right to apologise to the resident for its delay in investigating her complaint. It was also good that it had told the resident that it had made changes to the way it responded to repairs. This was by taking all repair calls direct into its contact centre. This shows the landlord was willing to improve its service for residents. In its final response on 29 September 2022 the landlord awarded the £150 was for the time it had taken the landlord to investigate the resident’s complaint. Whilst it is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident by offering compensation, in the Ombudsman’s view the compensation awarded was not sufficient. This is because of the considerable length of the delay in its response and the resident repeatedly having the chase the landlord for a response.
  3. The resident made a further complaint to the landlord on 12 July 2022. This was over the telephone. It was about the poor standard of cleaning in communal areas and lack of grounds maintenance. It was also about the delays in it responding to its repairs. The landlord confirmed the resident’s complaint on 1 August 2022. It provided its stage one complaint response on 24 August 2022. Its response to this complaint was also delayed. It was an improvement for the landlord to inform the resident with an update after 14 working days. It should have provided its response within 10 working days in line with its complaints policy. It is good practice and conforms to the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code for the landlord to inform the resident if it requires longer to investigate a complaint. It took 31 working days to provide its stage one complaint response.
  4. The resident requested this complaint be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 12 September 2022. The resident followed up both of her complaints in October 2022 and the landlord had closed this complaint without a response. It re-opened it and provided a stage two response on 26 October 2022 which was also 31 working days. The landlord should have responded within 20 working days. The landlord apologised to the resident for its delay in investigating this further complaint and awarded the resident £150 for the delays in investigating the resident’s complaint.
  5. The landlord has awarded the resident £300 across both complaints, for its delays in investigating the resident’s complaints. In its compensation policy it states that it will award residents compensation of £50 to £250 for failure to meet service standards. This is where the failure has had no significant impact. The Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance also states it will award compensation between £250 to £700 for considerable service failure or maladministration. It provides an example of this, where a complainant has repeatedly had to chase responses from the landlord. And where failures have taken place over a considerable period of time.
  6. The landlord is to pay the resident a further £200 in addition to the compensation already awarded to the resident. This level of increased compensation better reflects the landlord’s continuing delays in investigating the complaints. It also considers the resident having to repeatedly chase the landlord for complaint responses. This is in line with the code as well as the compensation guidance within the landlord’s own policies.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s level of provision for communal cleaning, repairs and garden maintenance.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord is to pay the resident within 28 days of this report a further £200 for its complaint handling. This is in addition to the £500 already paid in respect of both of these complaints.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should continue to carry out regular inspections to ensure the quality of cleaning and grounds maintenance on the estate. To assist in communication between the landlord and the resident, the landlord could consider communicating with the resident prior to it completing its regular inspections of the communal areas of the building. This would allow the resident to be present during such inspections. Or the landlord could allow her to raise her specific concerns during the inspection process.
  2. The contractor is encouraged to provide photographic evidence of its cleaning of communal areas to the landlord. This would provide supporting evidence of the works it has completed in case of any future queries.