Royal Borough Of Greenwich (202124038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124038

Royal Borough Of Greenwich

31 May 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

This complaint concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of cleaning to the communal areas.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of maintenance and repairs to the communal areas.
This report has also considered the complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a two-bedroom first floor flat.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy. At stage one the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within five days and will respond within 15 working days of receipt of the complaint. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint will be escalated to stage two where the landlord will respond within 20 days. If the above timescales cannot be met the resident will be informed both with the reason for this and provided with a revised timeframe.
The landlord’s housing services policy states “where we charge leaseholders and/or tenants a service charge for a specific service we will consider requests for a pro rata refund for a lost service, where a problem with the service has been reported and we fall outside of our agreed timeframes to rectify. These payments are treated as refunds rather than a compensation award”.
The lease agreement provides that the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the flat and the building and to make good any defect affecting the structure. In addition the landlord’s obligations include “to keep in good repair and condition the common parts”.
Under the lease the common parts are include the landings, lifts, staircases, the garden, bin stores which can be resident as well as all other occupiers of the other flats in the block.

Summary

The resident has advised that she has made a number of complaints to the landlord with regards to the property since moving in in 2018. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from May 2019 onwards as these matters relate to the complaint which was considered by the landlord and went through its internal complaints process. Any reference to other emails relating to other matters in this report are for context only.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2019 in response to the work carried out by the landlord on the communal areas. This had followed her enquiry via a telephone call on 29 May 2019. She set out that remedial work remained outstanding. This included some parts being left unpainted, a large hole being left in the wall near the door and issues with the stairwell which had been plastered but not painted.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 June 2019 to say that finishing touches had been carried out the previous day. The resident replied the same day to say that this had not occurred. She enclosed photos of the areas.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 June 2019 to accept that whilst repairs had been carried out on 14 June 2019 it had not carried these repairs to all of the communal doors. It apologised for the error and explained the contractors would return to do this by an estimated date of 5 July 2019.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 26 June 2019 to make a complaint about the condition of the communal areas of the block. She explained that having paid the service charge the condition of the communal area was not to the required standard. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. It explained that the resident would receive a response within 15 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 July 2019 to explain it had written to her on 21 June 2019 to explain that the work would be completed by 5 July 2019. It asked whether she had received the letter.
The resident replied back to the landlord on 17 July 2019. She explained she had not received the landlord’s letter of 21 June 2019. She had telephoned the landlord on several occasions and been told different things. She asked for an update on the works which were still outstanding.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 August 2019 in which she had asked for the job numbers for all the works which the landlord had stated had been completed with regards to the communal staircase for the block. She asked if a complaint about all of the issues which she had previously logged had been made. The resident added that her earlier email sent on 17 July 2019 had been ignored by the landlord.
The landlord replied on 19 August 2019 to detail the works which had been completed. It explained this was to address a gap around the communal doors only. It added that other decoration works to the other communal staircase near to the shop 5 were not works which its planned works team had committed to and that it would enquire to see if the block of flats was on any program for communal repairs or decorations. The landlord provided the resident with a complaint reference number.
The resident replied to the landlord on 19 August 2019 to explain that general maintenance and decoration were part of the lease she had signed and was part of her service charges. She added the work she was complaining about were maintenance issues in the communal areas. This included a hole in the wall and leaks into the balcony from the staircase when it rained. She requested the landlord raised a formal complaint about all the issues she had raised and not merely concerning the gap around the communal doors.
The landlord sent out a letter on 9 September 2019 as it stage one response. This had followed it acknowledging the complaint on 22 August 2019. The letter explained the landlord had arranged for a property service officer (PSO) to inspect the communal area to identify the source of the leak and to ascertain any remedial works required. It added it would write to the resident following this inspection. The landlord offered the resident the right to escalate the matter to stage two and explained this needed to be done within one month.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 September 2019. She explained that the stage one response had been written with no investigation carried out to the issues raised in the complaint. The resident stated the letter had not answered any of the questions raised in her complaints and questioned why she was paying service charges for maintenance and repairs which were not being carried out.
In an internal email dated 19 September 2019 carried out after the PSO had inspected the communal area, the landlord suggested there was possible ponding occurring inside the lobby area at the far end of the building and that the gully gate to the left of the door was blocked. The PSO also noticed the presence of dog excrement and suggested the gully was cleaned and a water test was carried out before repairs were done. The landlord booked a drain person to carry out work to clear the gully.
The landlord noted in an internal communication on 10 October 2019 that the resident had escalated the complaint to stage two. It asked for updates on the issues raised by the resident.
The internal update from the landlord on 11 October 2019 stated that “making good to the lobby area that has been water damaged cannot be carried out until the cause has been resolved”. It added that all defects it had advised on had been completed or “orders are out for the issue to be resolved”. The email did not specify what were the defects it had been advised on.
The resident sent a number of emails to the landlord on 2 June 2020. These emails included pictures showing the issues of disrepair and lack of maintenance to the communal areas of the property.
The landlord forwarded the emails internally on 3 June 2020 and asked for an update on the issue. The landlord noted that it had already inspected most of it previously but was “not sure what the outcome was on who was going to carry out the repairs in terms of communal areas”. It added it was prepared to send out a PSO to inspect for window damages, door handles missing, which had been shown in the pictures sent by the resident, but wanted to ensure these were not issues already raised and were being dealt with by the appropriate areas.
The PSO visited the property on 4 June 2020 and asked for a number of works to be booked. These included glazing for the glass damage, electrical to fit a light fitting, carpentry to deal with the door handles as well as a quick release emergency exit bar on the fire door and to drains to clear all of the gullies to all floors.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2020. She enclosed an earlier email from 8 August 2019 in which she explained she had been chasing up on a number of issues and that she had not even received an acknowledgment from the landlord. This had related to issues which were still outstanding at that time.
The landlord replied to the resident on 8 June 2020. It explained that it was trying to resolve the matter for the resident but the area the resident had contacted could not deal with all of the issues the resident had raised. It added:
1. It had spoken to the manager of the repairs section and someone from there had been around to the property and had subsequently raised a number of jobs.
2. At the present time due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it had only half the work force so the matter might take longer than normal.
3. In terms of the electrical cabling it had emailed the electrical department as it appeared the council had done some work previously and never boxed the cables. It said it would look into this and make it safe.
4. In terms of general decoration it had sent this on to the asset management team who would do an inspection and then carry out the work. It added that this might be a major works contract which would require them to consult under the terms of the lease.
5. It had asked for an inspection to be carried out in terms of the cleaning to a different department, however it thought it was the repairs and decorations which needed to be dealt with.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 July 2020. It explained:
1. Following an inspection by a caretaking supervisor it had found the building to be cleaned to standard and that the chute hoppers had been in place. It added that the bin hoppers could be removed to allow the caretaker to clear any blockages. This meant a resident could also remove them which would allow the smell of the bin to travel through the open hopper. It stated it would write to the residents to ask it not to remove the hoppers.
2. In terms of the litter on the roof of the shop below the resident’s home, it had gained permission from the shop keeper to enter the shop and remove the litter.
3. In terms of changing the frequency of the cleaning of the external balcony railings, it was unable to do this as it would mean an increase to the service charge. It would however monitor and clean when necessary. It added any task not completed during “the scheduled clean are deducted from the service charge.”
4. In relation to the cleaning of windows this did not come under the remit of the caretaking services. It added caretaking staff would only clean internal communal windows which were easily accessible and whilst the caretaker rarely had the capacity to carry out this additional task it would try to fit it in when there was time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 August 2020. She explained that there was metal sticking out of the communal door and that this metal had cut her hand as well as injuring her niece a year ago. This had yet to be fixed and she had once again cut her hand when she was exiting the building. The resident explained she would be pursuing a personal injury claim as well as reporting the matter to the health and safety executive.
The landlord sent an internal email on 3 August 2020 to ask that the matter was looked into and a response was provided to the resident. Further internal emails sent over the next few days requested weed treatment was done to the garden of the block. However in relation to the work requested for carpentry, glazing, electrical and gully clearance the emails noted that none of these had been done. A request was made to complete these works before a further complaint was received.
On 7 August 2020 the landlord sent a further internal email which confirmed that the glazing works which had been booked by it had been completed. This had involved 18 pieces of glass and involved other work than simply replacing the glass. It stated the PSO was off away at the time and that once they PSO returned, they wanted to meet up to show what was done and to explain why some other bits had not been done.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 August 2020 to set out that:
1. The internal windows were easily accessible but had never been cleaned.
2. The balcony was full of cobwebs all over it.
3. She could get the cleaning done every week for £20 so she was unsure how it would lead to an increase in the service charge when it covered 20 or so properties.
4. There was metal which had been sticking out of the back communal door for over a year. The resident had reported it numerous times yet it had not been fixed and she had been cut on her finger by it. She had started a personal injury claim about it as well as reporting it to environmental health to start an investigation.
5. She wanted an independent surveyor to attend and look at what was being done and the cost for all of this as she believed there were areas which the landlord had failed to maintain.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 Augusts 2020 to explain an appointment to look at the metal protruding from the door had been arranged for the following day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 17 August 2020 to explain:
1. The caretaking staff were unable to carry out non-essential ad hoc tasks including window cleaning at the present time but would do it when there had time.
2. The balcony railings were scheduled to be carried out once a month and that any tasks not completed on the schedule would be logged and deducted from the lease hold charges.
3. It would arrange for an inspection of the weeds as they might be due for spraying.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 August 2020 to provide some further safety hazards to the communal external areas. This included holes in the floor to the back area of the block.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 21 August 2020. It explained that the repairs service would be attending that afternoon to provide covers for all trip hazard holes.
The resident emailed the landlord on 22 August 2020. She explained that she had slipped on the wood that they had placed on the floor. She questioned whether these were the covers which the landlord had referred to in its email the previous day. She also explained the metal was still sticking out of the communal door.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 August 2020. It expressed concerns that the resident had slipped. It explained that the wood panels had been put down as a temporary measure and that an order had been raised to fit metal grills. This work had been scheduled for 21 September 2020 as that was the next available date. It added that if there were any cancellations it would look to bring the appointment forward. It added that a carpenter was going to inspect the communal door on that day.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 August 2020. It explained it had inspected the back communal door on 14 August 2020 but were unable to identify metal protruding from it. Following the resident having sent a photo in showing the metal protruding it had reattended on 24 August 2020 and identified and removed the metal from the door. It apologised that the issue had not been identified previously.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 September 2020. She explained in response to the landlord’s email of 24 August 2020 about the temporary drain covers that this was not good enough, as someone could fall and break their neck.
The landlord replied back to the resident on 8 September 2020. It explained that the appointment on 21 September 2020 was the earliest one it had available. It added that it was not feasible for it to carry out inspection on all of its stock at that time. It added that residents should report issues as soon as possible. The landlord explained that it held estate walkabouts throughout the year and at those times residents could join council staff and councillors to inspect the shared areas and point out any issues. The landlord explained that once the government guidance in relation to social distancing was relaxed it would be prepared to facilitate a meeting with the resident.
The resident emailed on 24 September 2020. She explained that it had taken the landlord over a year to remove the metal sticking out of the door. She asked what had happened to all other repairs which she had reported. The resident added that whilst she had been provided with a date of 21 September 2021 for the drain covers to be replaced, that it had still not been done at that time.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2020 in relation to a separate matter. This was following a burglary. She mentioned in this email that her son was disabled.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October 2020, enclosing her earlier email of 24 September 2020. She explained all of the communal doors were vandalised and contained broken glass. The resident explained she had been reporting matters for between one and two years and that despite this the disrepair had still not been resolved. She asked for contact details of the health and safety team.
Further emails were sent in by the resident over the next two days to the landlord. These emails noted that drugs were being smoked in the staircase, that communal latches were not working and this was allowing access to non- residents. The resident also questioned the lack of CCTV and of patrols. The resident added that the wet floor signs used by the cleaners were being lodged to open communal doors and that the cleaners needed to remove them after cleaning.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 November 2020. It explained it was awaiting on budgeting regarding CCTV and this was likely to be a lengthy process. It added that patrols had taken place and that the communal entrance doors were locked and secured. It referred the resident to report criminal behaviour to the police. In terms of the disrepair, it referred the resident to a different area.
The resident emailed the landlord on 13 November 2020 to explain that the signs were still being left out by the cleaners. She also informed the landlord in terms of the rubbish on the roof of the shop, that the shop owner had informed her access was available all the time.
Following a site visit, the landlord sent an internal email on 23 December 2020 citing it had found no evidence of ponding. The landlord also explained that it had received another complaint to do with the glazing in the communal doors from the resident and that it needed to be addressed as it had been chased and reported on several occasions and was a stage two complaint.
The resident sent in an email to the landlord on 31 December 2020 to report that the block had not been cleaned on that day. She sent in a further email on 3 January 2021 to say she had not received a response from the parks department for the landlord in over a year and that the area had not been maintained for over three years.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 January 2021 to explain that rain water was coming into the area of disrepair which she had reported over a year ago. She added that nothing had been done about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 15 January 2021 to explain it had forwarded the resident’s email received the previous day to the supervisor for the block. The supervisor would ask the caretaker to check the landings for any water which may have pooled.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email on 8 February 2021 that the glazing to the rear car park door had been completed and that the only one left needing glazing was the communal door. The landlord confirmed that it had applied duct tape to the glass to leave it safe with no sharp edges.
The resident sent in an email to the landlord on 13 February 2021 to say the block had not been cleaned and the balcony had not been cleaned for months She enquired when it would be cleaned.
The landlord informed the resident on 15 February 2021 to explain that due to the pandemic there was a staff shortage. It explained that the bannisters were scheduled to be cleaned on the fourth Thursday of each month. It added that if the scheduled work was not carried out the leaseholders would not be charged.
The resident emailed the landlord on 16 March 2021 to explain that the block had not been cleaned. The resident requested the weekly clean was carried out as well as the cleaning to the balconies. A further email was sent by the resident on 13 May 2021 once again confirming that the cleaning had not taken place.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 May 2021 to raise a final complaint in relation to all of the issues she had raised over the last two years in which she had copied in to a number of different email addresses for the landlord. The resident explained that the documentation in the lease holder pack had explained that “we will reply to your correspondence within 10 working days”. She added this had never occurred. The resident asked that the email was treated as a formal complaint and that it responded within 10 working days.
The landlord replied to the resident on 28 May 2021. It explained the resident’s email had been sent to an area which had no influence over repairs and investment. It provided the resident with an online complaint form for her to complete. The landlord did acknowledge the complaint on this date.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 June 2021 asking for direct contact details following the escalation of the complaint. She explained she was being chased for service charges for work which she believed had not been carried out. The landlord informed the resident on 14 June 2021 to explain that the service charges would be on hold whilst it would look into the matter.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 31 August 2021 to explain she had not heard anything since June over the matter. She sent a further email the next day to explain that the block had not been cleaned and the chute lid had been taken off for three weeks which had left an unbearable smell. The resident also explained the communal doors were once again not closing.
The landlord explained on 7 September 2021 that the supervisor had inspected the property on 2 September 2021 and the cleaning had passed inspection. It added that the back door had been inspected and this showed signs of repairs having been carried out. However despite this it had created a new repair job for it again. It added that it would not clean the shop roof as the roof was unstable and the matter was not the caretaker’s responsibility. It added that the concerns about weeds would be referred to the parks area.
The landlord provided the resident with the caretaker’s cleaning schedule on 9 September 2021. The resident explained in an email of 14 September 2021 that most of the list of tasks provided to her had not been done. She explained she would report issues not done to the landlord on a weekly basis. She added that she had not received the balcony cleaning schedule as yet. The landlord asked the PSO to undertake a further inspection of the block on 15 September 2021. Following this an inspection report was carried out on 22 September 2021.
The resident asked the landlord on 23 September 2021 for an update from the teams that it had contacted. She added that flies had been congregating on her doorstep due to the litter. She asked the matter to be escalated and she asked it to advise her of the full complaints process, as she said it had not been adhered to.
The landlord replied to the resident on 27 September 2021. It once again provided the online link for the resident to make a complaint. It added it had contacted the parks area and been informed that the grounds maintenance had been completed and the grass had been cut. The landlord added that the planters at the front of the block were not part of the grounds maintenance scheduled work and was dealt with on an ad-hoc basis. The landlord added that the balcony railings were not part of the scheduled clean but it dealt with it on an ad-hoc basis normally when the balconies were swept. It added that Autumn was spider season so it was quite a task to keep up with the cob webs.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 9 October 2021 to explain that there was dog mess all over the balcony and also on the staircase. She added the chute lid had been taken off again and the smell was overpowering. She said as a result the lid needed to be replaced with one which did not come off as easily. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 11 October 2021 that the dog mess had been cleaned and that the issue of the chute had been raised.
The resident informed the landlord on 28 October 2021 that there was dog mess again in the communal staircase and the cleaning had not been done. The landlord confirmed by return email that it would contact the caretaker to deal with it when she could. The resident replied in the evening to explain that no one had come as yet.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021 to explain the block had not been cleaned. She also referred to works which were half completed and there was lots of mess which needed to be rectified. She requested that the issue was investigated. A further email was sent by the resident on 13 December 2021 which explained that the communal door next to the shop was broken and did not close. She asked for it to be fixed given the smoking and drug use in the block.
The landlord issued the stage two response to the resident on 25 January 2022. It apologised for the delay in providing a formal response. It added the communal areas had been fully redecorated. This included the communal walls, stairwells and doors which had been either replaced or repainted. It accepted that its repairs service had taken a lengthy time to carry out the necessary work. It added since completing the repairs there had been no further reports regarding the condition of the communal areas. It offered an amount of £150 as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord explained in the stage two response in relation to the communal windows this did not form part of the caretaker service schedule. It added that the blocks would receive a minimum of two supervisor inspections per year. It provided referral rights to this Service.

Assessment and findings

Since the final response from the landlord on 25 January 2022 the resident has continued to email the landlord to raise further issues. This included areas which had blistered up due to damp which the resident explained had been due to the paint being applied whilst the area was still damp. In addition the resident had raised issues about the front door being broken and litter in the block. These issues will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman has however made a recommendation in relation to these issues which is set out at the end of this report.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of cleaning to the communal areas.

It is not the Ombudsman’s role to assess the standard of cleaning. This Service reviews whether the landlord has followed a fair process in considering the resident’s concerns about service standards.
Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident began to report concerns about communal cleaning standards in June 2020. Over the subsequent months, the resident’s concerns primarily centred on the cleaning of windows, the roof of the shop which was below her flat and the balconies which she explained were full of cobwebs and which had not been cleaned in a very long time.
The landlord has explained to the resident that the block was cleaned on a weekly basis. In terms of balcony railings these were cleaned on an ad-hoc basis normally when the bannisters had been swept which was once a month. However the landlord added that this was subject to there being time to do it as the balcony railing were not part of the scheduled tasks. Whilst the resident has referred to cobwebs being present this was not necessarily an indication that the balcony railings had not been cleaned for a considerable period of time. However, the landlord was expected to investigate whether the cleaning was taking place in line with its schedule.
It is evident that upon the resident having reported cleaning matters such as dog excrement at the block including on communal staircases, that this was cleaned promptly after it had been reported by the landlord and its operatives. These actions were reasonable and demonstrate that the landlord was resolution-focused and taking on board the resident’s concerns.
Whilst the resident has taken the view that the cleaning was not of an adequate standard and infrequent, at the time that the cleaning issue had first been reported, there were government restrictions in place due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This issue had a direct impact on both the frequency and level of service which could be provided by the landlord at that time. It had confirmed that there were staff shortages and that non-essential works were on hold. Cleaning would fall within the remit of being non-essential.
The resident continued to report cleaning concerns during the rest of 2020 onwards. In response, the landlord has provided evidence that it increased the rate of its block inspections, carrying out six of these between July 2021 and January 2022. This was an increase in the two-yearly inspections which the landlord explained it normally carried out at its blocks. This demonstrated that the landlord was responsive to the resident’s reports and took steps to check whether cleaning standards were being maintained. All of reports showed that the inspections had been passed as being satisfactory.
However prior to July 2021 the landlord has not provided any evidence of any inspection reports. Whilst there had been restrictions in place for some of 2020 this did not continue throughout the whole period that the resident had been reporting the cleaning issues.
The resident has reported on a few occasions that the weekly cleaning had not been carried out. The landlord has not responded to the resident on being informed about this, either to accept this or to dispute this. It did however set out that if a scheduled service did not take place then leaseholders would not be charged for this. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take, however as the service charge was set after the complaint was referred to this Service, it is unclear whether it had taken this into account..
In terms of the roof of the shop the landlord’s operative had previously cleaned it, following gaining access to it. Whilst the resident has stated that the shop owner has said access is available at all times, the landlord has confirmed that it would no longer clean this as it did not come under the remit of the caretaker’s cleaning schedule. The landlord also referred to a risk assessment it had carried out which determined the roof was unstable. It would therefore appear that the landlord acted appropriately in informing the resident that it was unable to clean the roof of the shop going forwards.
However this does not take into account that the roof of the shop constitutes being part of the external structure of the building. Therefore this would come within the landlord’s responsibility under the lease so it would need to remove items from it if it began to build up and caused damage to the structure. Therefore the landlord might want to think of in future if rubbish does build up on the roof with what steps it could take to clear it.
In summary, whilst the landlord’s responded to the resident’s complaint about the communal cleaning with a number of supervisor block inspections this was only for the period from July 2021 onwards. It also acted promptly when informed by the resident about fouling in the block. But the landlord has not been able to demonstrate that it responded to the resident’s complaint about the matter prior to this date or that it investigated whether the cleaning had taken place during that time. This was a failing on the part of the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of maintenance and repairs to the communal areas.

The resident had originally raised concerns about the repairs carried out to the communal doors. The landlord has confirmed that the damage was as a result of fitting new fire doors and frames in place of the existing doors. The landlord had acknowledged that the repairs had not been to the best quality as expanding foam was still visible on some of the frames. It had approached its contractor to undertake the repairs. However the works had been cancelled and returned to the initial contractor to make good the work. A deadline of 5 June 2019 had been given for the work to be completed.
Whilst the landlord’s contractor did attempt repairs to the doors in early June 2019 the landlord accepted that not all of the doors in the block had been repaired. As a result the contractor would need to reattend to finish off the work on those doors. This delay meant that the work was not completed until three months after the landlord had initially replaced the doors which was an unreasonable delay. Following the repair there was a further period whilst the plaster dried out fully before the landlord could re paint the areas.
The resident had also raised concerns about metal protruding from the communal door which had cut her hand. Whilst the resident had stated in her correspondence of 1 August 2020 that she had mentioned the issue for two years, this was the first reference of the issue in the evidence provided to this Service. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns two days later and asked someone to look into the matter. This was an appropriate initial response from the landlord, given the circumstances reported by the resident. However it then took the landlord 11 further days to make an appointment to inspect the door. Even though the landlord did not provide the resident with any timescale for a response given the nature of the repair reported by the resident, as it had physically cut her hand, this delay was not appropriate. No explanation was offered by the landlord over the delay.
The landlord undertook a second inspection of the door on 24 August 2020 following which it had removed the metal sticking out from it. This had followed on from the resident notifying the landlord the issue was still present on 22 August 2020. Whilst the landlord did apologise to the resident about the matter there was a failure to identify the metal in the initial inspection, especially as the resident has sent in photos to show the issue when she had initially raised the matter. This undermined the confidence in the resident that the landlord had taken her concerns seriously.
In relation to some of the other issues raised by the resident in relation to maintenance and repairs, the evidence provided by the landlord shows that it did attend site visits to try to identify the cause of the matter. Examples of this had included the issue of whether there had been ponding. The landlord had following the clearing of the gully reattended the block and it had determined this was not an issue. The landlord had also responded to the concerns raised by the landlord when it was notified of broken glass to the communal doors. It had where possible reglazed the doors and where there was a delay had applied duct tape to any sharp edges or broken glass. The landlord had also when notified by the resident of the holes in the floor in the back area of the property in August 2020 applied a temporary fix by means of placing wooden covers over the holes until grilles could be ordered and fitted.
However from the landlord’s repair log and correspondence it is clear there were gaps during which there was no evidence that any works or repairs were taking place. In relation to the numerous works including glazing and clearing the drains which had been booked by the PSO in June 2020, a further site visit in August 2020 had identified that none of these works had been carried out and that the notes on the work orders were either non-existent or contained very little information. This was not appropriate and would have reinforced the resident’s view that her complaints and concerns were not being dealt with by the landlord.

The complaints handling.

The resident had raised a complaint about the communal area repairs via a telephone call on 26 June 2019. The complaint had been acknowledged by the landlord on the same day and it had informed the resident that she would receive a response within 15 days which was in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord had then informed the resident five days later that it had already replied to her and provided a timescale for the work to be carried out. This response which had been treated as a service enquiry by the landlord had preceded the date the resident had made her complaint. The resident has stated that she had not received the landlord’s letter and that she had been given conflicting information by the landlord when she had called it about the matter. The landlord has not provided call notes for any conversations which it held with the resident so it is not clear what if any information the resident was provided with at the time.
Whilst the landlord’s correspondence of 21 June 2019 was not a stage one response nor was its email of 1 July 2019, it is clear that the matter had not been resolved for the resident as she chased up for an update on 17 July 2019, 12 days after the deadline for completing the work had passed after receiving the email of 1 July 2019. The landlord should have treated this at that time as a complaint as its policy explains that a complaint was any expression of dissatisfaction. It failed to do at the time and instead only did so a month later.
The landlord also failed to meet the timescales for the stage two response. The resident requested an escalation to stage two on 18 September 2019. However the landlord did not issue the stage two response until 25 January 2022, some 28 months later. The resident had emailed the landlord on a number of occasions in the intervening period to raise issues including those which had arose after her initial complaint in 2019. In her communication whilst she had not directly chased up on the complaint for which she had received the stage one response she did make it clear she had been reporting the matter for an extended period of time. In addition the stage two response from the landlord had acknowledged the escalation was as a result of the resident’s email of 18 September 2019.
Although some of the issues raised by the resident may have been impacted for some time as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic and the restrictions which were in place, this would not fully cover the 28 months that it took the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint with its final response.
The stage two response from the landlord did offer an apology for the delay whilst not providing any form of explanation to support why it had taken the landlord that length of time to respond. The quality of response from the landlord was not appropriate in that although it referred to the repairs being completed it did not set out details of these individual repairs. Whilst the landlord made a goodwill offer of £150 for the delay no breakdown has been provided to show how the landlord arrived at this figure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of cleaning to the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of maintenance and repairs to the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the complaints handling.

Reasons

The landlord whilst providing evidence to support that it made reasonable investigations into the resident’s communal cleaning concerns from July 2021 onwards did not do so prior to this time. It has not been able to demonstrate that it investigated whether the cleaning was being carried out in accordance with the cleaning schedule for the block.
There was a delay in the landlord carrying out some of the maintenance issues and repairs to the communal areas, outside of the pandemic restrictions which were in place for part of the time. There were also gaps in time during which the landlord did not appear to be progressing the repairs and maintenance reported by the resident.
There was an extended delay in excess of two years at stage two of the complaints process. The landlord did make an apology at stage two however the quality of its stage two response was not appropriate. The landlord offered no explanation in terms of the delay. The landlord made a goodwill offer at stage two however the offer was inappropriate for the extended length of the delay. The landlord had also failed to register a formal complaint when originally asked by the resident in June 2019. It had instead treated the matter as a service request and not followed up on it by escalating the matter once the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this Service.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £600, which is in addition to the amount offered in the stage two response, which comprises:
  1. £100 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of cleaning to the communal areas.
  2. £200 for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of maintenance and repairs to the communal areas.
  3. £300 for the failure in the complaints handling.
1. Pay the resident the £150 compensation, if it has not already been paid, which was previously offered by the landlord in the final response letter in January 2022.

Recommendation

The landlord reviews the concerns if it has not already done so, raised by the resident following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process in January 2022. Given the multiple issues the resident has raised over the timeframe the landlord should make sure it has identified all of the resident’s complaints/concerns and provides a clear explanation on each of the issues she has raised.