Parallel Journeys, Different Destinations
Since 2016, I, as a resident, have embarked on an arduous battle with my housing provider. Our shared mission has always been to support residents and ensure safe homes, yet it has become increasingly evident that we are heading towards divergent destinations. In this article, I’ll delve into the disconcerting revelations from the Housing Ombudsman's report, highlighting the traits that hinder my provider from attaining the esteemed title of a "simply brilliant landlord."
I’ll shed light on my personal initiatives (the creation of two websites) in an effort to lend a voice to fellow residents who have been silenced by their housing providers. It has become apparent that while my actions speak louder than their words, as we explore the transformative journey and invaluable lessons I have acquired along the way.
Through irrefutable evidence, this article serves to demonstrate the stark disparity between our professed journeys, ultimately questioning the authenticity of the provider's commitment to their residents. Through this exploration, we aim to shine a spotlight on the precarious nature of social housing, urging stakeholders to reevaluate their practices and emphasise genuine resident support. Remember this is but one ‘customer journey’.
Background - Some of the Complaints - Where our Journey Begins
As a resident of the building, I have raised several complaints regarding various issues that have been affecting the quality of living for me and my neighbours.
These complaints include (this is not a full list):
Lifts: There have been numerous problems with the lifts in the building. Despite the landlord's claims that they have addressed these issues, I strongly believed as the lifts have failed more times than their records indicate. I have personally experienced frequent breakdowns, and one incident where a neighbour was trapped in the lift with small children for nearly two hours. The refurbishment carried out in 2019 should have fully resolved these issues.
Door security: The issue of non-residents entering the building without permission. The magnets on the doors had weakened over time, making it possible for anyone to push them open with force. The landlord's response to this security concern has been inadequate, as they have not implemented a permanent solution. I expect the landlord to provide secure doors that could withstand forced entry and install effective CCTV surveillance, as advertised on their website.
Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB): There have been incidents of groups of youths entering the building without permission, causing disturbances and using our shared bins to stash a replica gun and drugs. I was disappointed with the landlord's response to these issues, as they claim to be working with other agencies but had not effectively resolved the problem. I had requested additional deterrents and improved security measures to ensure the safety and well-being of residents.
Communication: These complaints have highlighted communication gaps, lack of ownership, and record-keeping issues within the landlord's internal departments. It has been challenging to receive adequate support from the Customer Service Team due to these issues. I had expressed my dissatisfaction with these shortcomings and urged the landlord to address them promptly.
Overall, I expected my landlord to take these complaints seriously, review their processes, and make necessary improvements to ensure a safe and comfortable living environment for all residents.
When we consider my landlords complaint procedure it appears that we are together on how complaints should be handled, at this point on our journey we stand together.
My Landlord's Complaint Procedure and Alignment with my Complaints
My landlord has established a complaint procedure to address customer concerns and ensure a prompt resolution. The procedure consists of three steps to ensure that complaints are handled fairly and reasonably. By examining the landlord's complaint procedure and comparing it to my specific complaints, we can assess the alignment between the two.
The complaint procedure begins with Step 1, where customers are encouraged to directly communicate their concerns to the landlord. This aligns with my initial approach of contacting the landlord regarding the issues I had experienced. The procedure emphasises the importance of resolving issues promptly and encourages customers to reach out via the provided contact details.
Step 2 of the procedure involves the Customer Care Team, whose role is to thoroughly understand the complaint, investigate the problem, and personally manage the case until a resolution is achieved. This aligns with my expectation of having my complaint fully understood and addressed by the landlord. The Customer Care Team aims to respond within ten working days, which again aligns with my desire for a timely response.
In Step 3, the procedure allows for an executive review if I’m unsatisfied with the Customer Care Team's response. A director who has not previously been involved in the case will assess whether my complaint was handled fairly and reasonably. This review process ensures an impartial evaluation of the concerns, again aligning with my expectation of a thorough and unbiased assessment.
If I (or any resident) remains dissatisfied with the outcome after exhausting the landlord's internal complaint procedure, Step 4 provides the option to escalate the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service. This aligns with my desire (should it be deemed necessary) for an external authority to intervene if the landlord's resolution process proves ineffective. The Housing Ombudsman Service can provide further support and assistance in addressing my concerns.
Throughout the procedure, the landlord emphasises the importance of using customer feedback to improve their services continually. They review complaints regularly, monitor the effectiveness of changes made, and consult with customers to enhance their service. This aligns with my expectation that the landlord takes complaints seriously, learns from them, and implements necessary improvements.
So my landlord's complaint procedure demonstrates their commitment to addressing customer concerns and providing a fair and reasonable resolution. The alignment between my complaints and the steps outlined in the procedure indicates that my concerns should be taken seriously and handled in accordance with the established process.
I have taken the landlord's complaint procedure seriously and made every effort to engage with them in a constructive manner. I initially reached out to them, expressing my dissatisfaction and providing detailed accounts of the issues I have been facing. I believed that by following their recommended steps, my concerns would be addressed promptly and fairly.
However, despite my best efforts and the time invested in communicating my grievances, I did not receive the resolution I was seeking. The lack of an apology or compensation for the issues I have experienced was deeply disappointing. It is particularly concerning that these problems extend beyond my own living situation and impact a large number of my neighbours, further emphasising the urgency of finding a resolution.
Given the magnitude of the unresolved issues and the landlord's inability to provide a satisfactory response, I opted to escalate my complaint to the Housing Ombudsman. I believe that an independent third-party intervention was necessary to ensure a fair assessment of the situation and to provide the opportunity for a resolution that addresses not only my concerns but also those of my neighbours.
The First Signs of a Divergence
Despite my initial attempts to engage with my landlord and follow their complaint procedure, it became increasingly clear that there were significant gaps between their claimed actions and their actual behaviours. This section explores various aspects where the divergence between what my landlord purported to do and their actual practices became evident. These examples highlight the systemic failures and shortcomings within the organisation, which ultimately led to the need to escalate the matter to the housing ombudsman.
Communications
Despite communications being raised multiple times throughout the complaints, signalling a systemic failure within the organisation, my landlord failed to prioritise addressing this issue. Clear lines of communication could have prevented the need for escalation. While some communication efforts were made, they fell short of providing comprehensive updates and effective two-way dialogue. The absence of concrete timeframes further hindered accountability and delayed the resolution process, causing additional distress to residents.
Newsletters
My landlord shared seven monthly newsletters with myself and my neighbours, ostensibly aimed at providing updates. However, these newsletters facilitated one-way communication rather than encouraging 360-degree feedback. They also lacked concrete timeframes, leaving residents without the necessary information and updates.
Meetings
Three meetings were arranged between myself, my neighbours, and our landlord. Despite our requests, the initial meeting was attended by junior frontline staff who lacked the authority to address the concerns of angry, distressed, and upset residents. The promise of a senior team member's attendance at the second meeting was broken, as they claimed to be unwell. The third and final meeting included a mixture of junior team members and a new mid-level manager, but they were unable to provide any substantial updates on their agenda items, leading to further frustration.
Communication Plan
Instead of learning from the feedback my landlord chose to place me on a communication plan. This hindered their ability to receive feedback, strengthen procedures, and learn from their failings. The Housing Ombudsman has already highlighted missed opportunities for urgent action and a lack of a positive complaints handling culture within the organisation, yet communication plans have been extended and strengthened.
Blocking
In addition to implementing communication plans, my landlord denies residents the opportunity to provide feedback through social media platforms. Unlike other housing providers, my landlord blocked residents from leaving comments on their social media accounts, limiting our ability to express concerns and engage in meaningful dialogue.
Failure to Respond to the Housing Ombudsman
In a further demonstration of their inability to meet commitments, my landlord also failed to submit all relevant information to the Housing Ombudsman on time, as instructed. This not only underscores their failure in addressing resident issues but also reflects a disregard for their responsibilities in the formal complaint process.
The examples outlined in this section highlight the growing divergence between my landlord's claims and their actual practices. It is clear that their actions fell short of their promises.
Incompetent or Unwilling?
During this process I started to reach out to other residents via my resident support website, and soon other residents were reaching out to me for support. Whilst the issues varied the response from our landlord was always the same. And this entrenched behaviour continues to this day.
With the publication of the latest corporate strategy (the third published since 2016) it is clear that whilst the titles are tweaked the promises remains the same; to listen, to treat residents with respect, to put things right, and to be open and transparent, however the behaviour has not changed.
To answer the question posed in the section heading I’ll provide a section of outcomes from the Housing Ombudsman summary.
Lifts
Myself and my neighbours complained that there had been regular problems with the lifts for several years and the landlord should have carried out a full repair rather than attending repeatedly. I have continued to inform my landlord and the Ombudsman that the lifts still break down regularly.
Summary of the Ombudsman Findings Regarding the Lift:
The landlord claimed that there were no recurring problems with the lifts since their refurbishment in 2019, based on attending to five different faults. However, the evidence presented contradicted this claim. Between July 2019 and October 2020, there were numerous reports of lift malfunctions and repairs, including issues with call switches, residents getting stuck in the lift, out-of-order status, faulty safety mechanisms, fire alarm incidents, inoperative lights and emergency systems, and more. Additional reports of faults and maintenance issues continued even after the landlord's complaints process concluded.
Despite the extensive evidence provided to the landlord, they failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the lift issues. The records mentioned in their complaint response did not accurately reflect the number of reported faults and issues, raising concerns about the landlord's reasonable conclusion on this matter. Given the frequency of reported faults and the ongoing issues with the lifts, the landlord should have conducted a more comprehensive examination to identify maintenance shortcomings, provide reassurance to residents, ensure the lifts' proper functioning, and implement necessary improvements.
By neglecting to fully investigate the lift issues, the landlord missed valuable opportunities to address maintenance shortcomings, reassure residents, ensure proper lift operation, and take appropriate steps to improve the lift service.
Independent inspection as requested by the Housing Ombudsman
Following the investigation of my complaint by the Housing Ombudsman Service, my landlord were ordered to: Arrange for an appropriately qualified lift maintenance specialist to inspect the communal lifts and provide a report as to the condition of the lifts, any current repairs, and whether it is reasonable to continue to complete ad hoc repairs, or if it would be more cost effective to carry out more significant works, refurbishment or replacement works. This report should be provided to the Ombudsman and the resident.
The inspection report has revealed several areas of concern and deficiencies in the lift installation, highlighting the need for modifications to ensure compliance with safety standards and regulations. The findings indicate that the lift does not meet the requirements of The Health & Safety at Work Act 1974, British and European Standards, and other relevant codes of practice.
In terms of health and safety, there are several high-risk items that require immediate attention. These include the installation of high voltage notices throughout the installation where voltages above 50v exist, providing emergency release key instructions, and installing a fused lockable mains isolator. Additionally, a notice on the car top control warning of alternative supplies for lights and socket should be provided. Knowing these are of ‘high risk’ I’ve again asked for timeframes yet my landlord refuses to provide any to me or my neighbours.
The non-compliant lower pit switch needs to be replaced, and emergency communication devices should be installed within the pit area and on the car top. To address potential dangers, a "do not lean over handrail" danger notice should be placed on the car to balustrade, and car door zone locking should be implemented. Furthermore, an infill or a safe standing grille is needed for the shallow aperture in the pit area, and pit controls should be provided.
In terms of maintenance, there are numerous issues that should be addressed to improve the reliability and maintainability of the lift equipment. These include reprogramming the voice enunciator for correct floor announcements, addressing the auto dialler's connection with the previous maintenance providers, and attending to emergency communications failed on battery back-up power.
Repairing the failed call accepted indicator on the 1st floor car call push unit and resolving floor levelling issues at the 2nd floor and in the up direction are also necessary. The damaged oil catchment pots at the base of guide rails need to be replaced, and the car preference operation should be attended to, as the car doors start to close on answering a call and then re-open.
Proper cleaning and degreasing of the pit area, including the removal of standing oil on the sole plate, are required. Re-plumbing ground floor doors, repairing the failed shaft light unit at the head of the lift shaft, and fixing the failed direction arrows on the car entrance panel are additional maintenance tasks.
Other issues that need attention include re-fixing the loose -1 level landing door, adjusting the slow-down activation dimension, checking and adjusting plumb, distance between guide rails, and boning of car guide rails, as well as adjusting car shoes to eliminate "tight spots" during travel. Investigation and rectification of the ongoing OV3 fault (overvoltage on the Frenic drive unit) are crucial, along with resolving the unstable ride quality at contract speed. Adjusting the stopping position of the lift, which is currently low at 0 level when traveling up from the lowest level served, is necessary. It is also important to review the reliability issues associated with the drive overvoltage trip OV3, which have been persistent since the replacement of the main control system in 2019.
The documented history of faults and maintenance activities further emphasises the need for attention and remedial actions. The lift has experienced recurring reliability issues, including faults related to overcurrent, motion feedback error, overvoltage on the drive, and trap release problems.
These issues have occurred frequently since the replacement of the main control system in 2019 by the previous maintenance providers. The lack of recorded maintenance calls between 2016 and 2020 raises concerns about the maintenance history and the overall reliability of the lift system.
Overall, the inspection findings highlight significant concerns regarding the health and safety compliance and maintenance practices of the lift installation. The identified issues require prompt attention and appropriate actions to ensure the safety, reliability, and proper functioning of the lift equipment.
Resident Safety: CCTV, secure doors, and ASB
I raised concerns about how the landlord handled security issues with communal doors and related anti-social behaviour (ASB). The landlord's ASB policy outlined measures to address ASB promptly and preventatively. The repair policy classified external doors and ground floor windows as emergency repairs, with a target response time of 24 hours.
I notified the landlord about ASB issues, including forced entry, drug use, and abusive behaviour by individuals, as early as April 2019. The landlord mentioned considering changes to the fob system but did not take follow-up action at that time.
Between September 2019 and October 2021, the landlord received 14 reports of issues with the communal doors not shutting or being secure. The severity of the security issue, with allegations of vandalism, drug use, and intimidation, was evident. An assault on a resident was reported in January 2020.
Although the landlord took some appropriate action in January 2020, such as starting consultation and collaborating with the police and ASB team, there was a lack of urgency in addressing the issue. The landlord did not complete repairs or start the consultation process until approximately October 2020. Temporary fixes were made in September 2020, which partially resolved the issue, but reports of break-ins and ASB persisted.
Considering the landlord's policies emphasising prompt response and preventative measures, the delay in addressing the security concerns, which were raised since April 2019, is concerning. The consultation process to replace the communal doors did not begin until approximately 18 months after their insecurity was first reported. The delays had a detrimental impact on myself and other residents, given the incidents of ASB, thefts, assaults, and drug use. There is no evidence of a risk assessment conducted by the landlord, as required by their ASB policy.
Regarding the basement door and car park gates, the landlord attempted repairs in response to the resident's reports but faced ongoing issues. These problems added to the overall security concerns in the building.
My landlord's handling of repairs related to entrance doors, security issues, and ASB exhibited delays and a lack of urgency, despite policies emphasising prompt action. The delays had a detrimental impact on myself and other residents in the building. There was a failure to conduct a risk assessment, and ongoing issues with the basement door and car park gates exacerbated the security concerns.
CCTV issues
I complained about the landlord's handling of CCTV cameras and their procedures for making the footage available to the police. I pointed out that their process was inefficient and had a negative impact on the police's ability to investigate the anti-social behaviour (ASB) issues. While the landlord disputed my claim, they did admit that their system could be more efficient and mentioned their plans to explore a remote access system for the footage.
I also raised concerns about the CCTV footage not being shared with the police before being wiped, the lack of procedures for reporting CCTV activities, and the status of the CCTV camera above the door. In response, the landlord stated that they would provide footage to the police if requested within 10 days of an incident.
They acknowledged that their processes could be improved and mentioned their intention to update their guidelines. The landlord confirmed that the camera above the front door was repaired on August 17th 2020, having previously denied that it was faulty.
Throughout the complaint process, there were instances where I requested the landlord to review CCTV footage following incidents, such as youth entering the building or thefts. The landlord assured me on multiple occasions that they had obtained the footage and would share it with the police, which seemed appropriate. However, the evidence provided by the landlord regarding their access to and retrieval of CCTV footage was limited, and it was unclear whether they were able to access the footage appropriately in response to the various reports.
While the landlord acknowledged the need for improvement in their CCTV procedures and expressed plans to enhance their system, there was a lack of substantial evidence demonstrating their effective retrieval and utilisation of CCTV footage in response to the reported incidents.
Complaint handling
My landlord failed to handle my complaints fairly and in accordance with their own complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman's Complaints Handling Code.
Despite expressing dissatisfaction with various issues my landlord did not treat my emails as formal complaints, as they should have according to their policy. This resulted in missed opportunities to address the issues more urgently.
Furthermore, when my landlord did eventually treat my communication as a formal complaint, it appeared to be motivated by a desire to manage my communications rather than genuinely address my concerns. This demonstrates a lack of positive complaints handling culture on the part of the landlord.
Additionally, my landlord's response to my complaint about service charges was inadequate. I had raised concerns about being charged for repairs that had not been completed, and I requested a refund to reflect this. The landlord simply stated that the charges were correct and that they had not recharged for anything related to ongoing repairs or anti-social behaviour (ASB).
However, the landlord's own service charge schedule included charges for lift service and repairs, communal repairs and cleaning, and door entry maintenance and repair. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord claimed that I had not been recharged for these items, considering the issues I had complained about would fall under these charges.
Overall, my landlord failed to appropriately investigate the aspect of my complaint regarding service charges and missed an opportunity to address this issue. This further highlights their shortcomings in complaints handling.
What action did the Housing Ombudsman make?
The following orders and recommendations have been made to the landlord:
Within six weeks, my landlord must compensate me with a total of £2,050. This includes £1,200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by their delays in addressing repairs to the bin stores and security issues with the communal entrance doors, £250 for the shortcomings in their investigation of lift maintenance, £250 for the impact on me and the mishandling of my complaint due to their failures in record-keeping, and £350 for the additional distress, inconvenience, and time caused by their handling of my formal complaint.
My landlord have pushed back on this and have asked the Housing Ombudsman to reconsider this amount.
The landlord must provide me with a written apology from a senior staff member, acknowledging the failings identified in the report. They should also offer to meet with me if I wish to do so, providing an opportunity to rebuild our landlord-tenant relationship.
They have provided an apology, however it lacks any empathy or assurances that my landlord will ‘do better’ or has plans to move forward. With regards to a meeting my landlord has pushed back under the pretence that I’m not a resident, this is an old tactic they’ve decided to reuse. This seems to underline their attitude towards residents who complain, and a further effort to restrict their ability to listen and learn.
My landlord should consider whether it is appropriate to offer equivalent compensation payments to other residents in the block who were affected by their shortcomings in handling communal door security and bin store repairs. They must report back to the Ombudsman with their findings and decision.
Within eight weeks, the landlord must arrange for a qualified lift maintenance specialist to inspect the communal lifts. A report should be provided to the Ombudsman and myself, detailing the lifts' condition, any necessary repairs, and whether it would be more cost-effective to carry out significant works, refurbishment, or replacements.
I have received this and summaries above, it supports the ongoing issues I’ve been reporting since 2016.
My landlord must review its record-keeping practices and policies regarding repairs and CCTV requests. Any necessary steps to improve record-keeping should be identified and implemented. My landlord should update the Ombudsman with their findings and improvements.
My landlord should review its communication processes involving the Customer Service Team to determine if the shortcomings identified in this complaint still persist. If they do, my landlord must identify and take the necessary steps to address these issues. Conclusions about this review should be reported back to the Ombudsman.
My landlord should instruct its complaints handling staff to review the comments in the report regarding my service charge refund request and the shortcomings in their complaints handling. They must ensure that their complaints handling staff are familiar with the Ombudsman's Complaints Handling Code. My landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that these steps have been taken.
It’s not just me…
After being blocked and creating my first resident support website it became clear that these issues were systemic across my landlords property portfolio.
Reflecting my desire to help address these issues are my landlords published promises, the words of our CEO seem to dictate a culture of listening and learning.
As a concerned resident trying to hold a landlord accountable for their lack of service and support, I have joined forces with fellow residents through our resident support website. It has become evident that our landlord's behaviour, characterised by incompetence and unwillingness, remains consistent across multiple counties. Despite the repeated publication of corporate strategies promising transparency, respect, and prompt resolutions, the reality of their actions tells a different story.
Time and again, residents have reached out to our landlord seeking assistance and resolution, only to be met with the same unhelpful response. Despite the promises made in their corporate strategies, the landlord has shown a consistent unwillingness to engage with residents and address their concerns. This lack of response and engagement has created a growing sense of frustration and disillusionment among residents.
The landlord's track record in addressing maintenance and repair issues is marred by incompetence and negligence. Numerous reports from residents across different locations have highlighted ongoing problems that the landlord has failed to address adequately. From essential repairs to critical maintenance, the landlord's disregard for their responsibilities has left residents in compromised living conditions and at risk of further damage to their properties.
Residents have voiced significant concerns regarding safety and security, only to have their pleas fall on deaf ears. Issues such as faulty security systems, inadequate lighting, and insufficient surveillance have persisted, leaving residents feeling vulnerable and unprotected. Despite the corporate strategies' promises of transparency and prompt action, the landlord has shown a lack of urgency in addressing these critical matters, exacerbating the risk to residents' well-being.
Residents' attempts to voice their complaints and provide feedback have been met with indifference and a lack of proper consideration. The landlord's dismissive attitude towards resident complaints, treating them as inconsequential matters, further deepens the divide between residents and the corporate entity responsible for their well-being. This disregard for complaints and feedback has contributed to an environment of frustration and powerlessness among residents.
As residents united in our quest for justice, we demand that our landlord be held accountable for their incompetence and neglect. We urge them to acknowledge their shortcomings, provide sincere apologies, and take meaningful steps to rectify the issues that have plagued our communities for far too long. Rebuilding trust can only be achieved through tangible actions, including improved communication, timely resolutions, and a genuine commitment to meeting residents' needs.
Yet this is where it becomes clear that although we appear to be on parallel tracks heading towards providing a satisfactory level of service, we seem to have arrived at different destinations.
Whilst I continue to learn and offer limited support to other residents, and now across different housing providers there has been a continued lack of of service and support across multiple counties. As residents fighting for our rights, we will not back down and continue to seek support. We must have action, transparency, and accountability from our landlord to ensure that the well-being and satisfaction of residents become their top priorities.
In Conclusion
My journey into the Housing Sector began as a single resident, but it quickly grew to encompass my neighbourhood and extended across multiple counties, involving numerous providers.
Over the past year, I have garnered over 3,000 followers on LinkedIn and continue to expand my social media presence to connect with and support fellow residents.
I have engaged in multiple discussions with various housing providers, and through these fruitful conversations with you and your dedicated colleagues my faith has been partially restored. It is evident that emerging technologies hold great potential to support the sector and its residents. However, if my experience is indicative of the typical customer journey, we still have a long way to go.
In recent months, my own landlord has violated Section 20 guidelines, which has allowed me to uncover and learn valuable insights that I have shared with others. While my initial focus on my resident support website highlights the shortcomings of my specific landlord, these experiences have provided valuable lessons for all of us. By sharing these learnings, we can ensure that other customer journeys are not as arduous.
But why should any customer journey be so challenging? Don't we all desire to reach the same destination? Don't we all strive to receive and provide exceptional service? Shouldn't we place our residents and customers at the heart of everything we do?
According to my own landlord's latest Customer Involvement and Empowerment Strategy, they too promise a commitment to excellent customer service, underpinned by several core principles.
They emphasise collaboration with customers, actively seeking input and involvement in finding solutions and shaping services. They believe in inclusivity, utilising various channels; from face-to-face interactions to digital platforms, to effectively engage with all their customers. They aim to provide customers with increased access to information and foster stronger connections between residents and their executive team and board. They recognise the importance of building trusted relationships and plan to achieve this through transparency and accountability. All of these they’ve been promising me since 2016, yet here we are no further forward.
These principles serve as the foundation of their latest customer-centric approach. Can this transformation truly take place? I certainly hope so...