Cognatum Estates Ltd (202317780)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202317780

Cognatum Estates Ltd

14 May 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about major works.
   2. Complaint handling.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of a property managed by the landlord.
3. On 21 January 2022, the landlord provided the resident with a notice of intention to undertake major works. This was for repair and maintenance of a wall. During and after the consultation process, the resident raised concerns to the landlord about the proposed works. He said part of the work included was unnecessary in his professional opinion. He said the removal of this from the schedule of works would change the outcome of the tender analysis due to varying costs between the contractors. The resident asked the landlord to reimburse residents for the work he felt was unnecessary. The resident withdrew this request after the landlord told him it would have to pause the works and inform other residents due to the financial risk of the resident’s request.
4. The resident complained formally on 19 June 2023. The resident was concerned about the landlord’s tender process, the decision to include the provision of a zinc covering in the major works, the behaviour of the landlord in its correspondence about his claim for unnecessary expenditure, and unreasonable costs. The resident said to resolve the complaint he wanted the landlord to reimburse leaseholders for the overspend. On 5 July 2023 the resident withdrew this request again. As resolution to the complaint, he asked the landlord to audit its procurement procedures to include its advisers, and involve residents in decisions on working projects.
5. On 29 June 2023, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint. It said it would deal with this at stage 2 of its complaints process. It said this was because the resident had already received a response on the issues.
6. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 July 2023. It explained it had consulted with and informed the resident about the work required, and had considered his comments. It said its decision to include the zinc covering was on the recommendation of a structural engineer report, and was necessary for the repair and future maintenance. The landlord explained it was currently planning the future maintenance of the wall. It said it expected the costs to form part of the coming service charge budget, which would be subject to consultation.
7. The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said the landlord had not dealt with the complaint fairly. He was also concerned about the landlord’s conduct in its correspondence with him.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

8. Part of the resident’s complaint is about the cost of the work charged to residents through a service charge and the landlord’s tender process. The resident raised in his complaint that costs were increased due to the inclusion of an item of work he felt was unnecessary. The Service cannot make a binding decision on complaints about the level of or increase to service charges or determine whether service charges are reasonable.
9. Complaints about the level of a service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable.
10. While we are unable to decide on the matters above, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the proposed works, and if its explanation and communication were reasonable and appropriate.
11. The resident raised concerns to the Ombudsman about meetings with the landlord, the previous maintenance of the wall, and a request for the landlord to review and audit its procurement process. We have not seen evidence of these issues having exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, the scope of this investigation centres on the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint, to which the landlord sent its final response on 28 July 2023. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to an investigation by us.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about major works.

12. The lease agreement says the landlord will repair and maintain the structure of the building, common parts and boundary walls belonging to the estate. It says the service charge is payable by the resident to the landlord yearly. This charge represents the proportion of the costs and expenses incurred by the landlord. This includes supplying and maintaining all works and services, and the provision of a reserve fund.
13. The landlord’s estate information pack says if there is to be a large increase in the service charge, residents must be informed. Residents have the right to be consulted before it carries out any work costing more than £250 per property. The landlord must get at least two independent estimates for any major works. It says the requirements for consultation with owners on major expenditure are:
    1. A Notice of intention to carry out works with one month for written observations and residents’ nominations of contractors.
    2. Obtain estimates.
    3. Notification following receipt of estimates and 30 days for observations.
    4. Notification of appointment of chosen contractor.
14. Under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act) a landlord is required to consult with a leaseholder before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250, including repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building and estate their property is situated.
15. The evidence shows the landlord followed the correct Section 20 procedure in line with its legal obligations, and the process outlined in its estate information pack. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had consulted with the resident beyond what was required. While the landlord had not agreed with the resident’s view on the work he felt was unnecessary, the correspondence between the landlord and resident between April 2023 and July 2023 confirmed it communicated with him about this and responded to his concerns.
16. The landlord’s stage 2 response sets out its reasons for what it was including in the major works. The resident did not agree with some of the decisions made. However, the final decision was the landlord’s to make, based on the information and advice it had obtained from its operatives. In doing so the landlord appropriately provided answers about its decisions through its correspondence and its complaint response. This included its reasoning for the zinc cover issue, the result of the tender analysis, and future maintenance plans. It also provided the evidence to the resident from its expert report on which it had based its decision.
17. The landlord confirmed that it was not appropriate or desirable for it to rely on residents for professional advice. The landlord’s response provides the resident with reasons for its decision. Its response was appropriate. The landlord is entitled to rely on the expertise of its contractor and advisers.
18. In his complaint, the resident raised concerns about the landlord’s conduct in correspondence about his request for a reimbursement of costs. He said the landlord had attempted to damage his reputation with other residents because it explained it would need to delay the work due to his request and inform other residents of this. The landlord did not specifically respond to this in its complaint response. As such we are unable to assess its response to the resident’s concerns. It should have addressed this point through its complaints process, as it was clearly an important issue of concern for the resident.
19. In summary, we are not able to determine the reasonableness of the work, or the decisions taken by the landlord about what to include in the major works. The landlord demonstrated that it had consulted with the resident through its consultation process as required. Its complaint response provided reasons for its decisions and actions. Overall, the landlord demonstrated it had considered the resident’s concerns, provided detailed explanations, and communicated appropriately. However, it failed to address the resident’s concerns about its conduct in its correspondence about the reimbursement of costs.

Complaint handling.

20. The landlord’s complaints policy and procedure says it has a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 it will provide an acknowledgement within 5 working days, and a written response within 10 working days from acknowledgement. If the resident remains unhappy with the outcome of the investigation at stage 1, they can escalate the complaint to stage 2. It will log and acknowledge a stage 2 request within 5 working days and respond 20 working days from this. At both stages, if for any reason a longer time is required the resident will be informed of this before this time period has lapsed and advised when to expect a response.
21. The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. It says landlords must only escalate a complaint to stage two once it has completed stage one and at the request of the resident. The Code also says a complaint investigation must be conducted in an impartial manner.
22. The landlord did not provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint. It responded only at stage 2. On 5 May 2023 that it would deal with his complaints under stage 2 of its policy. On 29 June 2023, the landlord said it would deal with the matters at stage 2 because it had previously responded to the same issues.
23. The evidence shows correspondence between the landlord and resident over a number of months about the major works. However, there is no evidence of a formal stage 1 complaint response. Because of that the landlord’s decision to skip stage one of its complaint response was not line with its policy or the Code. It meant the resident did not have the opportunity to have his concerns robustly investigated, as he would have if the landlord had formally responded to his complaint at both stage 1 and 2. The landlord did not identify or address this failing.
24. The landlord’s stage 2 response was later than the timescales in its policy. However, it had notified the resident of this delay on 19 July 2023. It provided an explanation for the delay in line with its policy and the Code.
25. The resident raised concerns about the impartiality of the stage 2 investigation. On 30 June 2023, he told the landlord that the staff member assigned to investigate the complaint had been involved in his previous correspondence and had shared their opinion on the complaint. In line with the Code, the landlord appropriately reassigned this to another staff member on 3 July 2023. That was an appropriate response to his concern, and nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation indicates the landlord’s response lacked impartiality.

Determination

26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about major works.
27. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

28. Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must pay the resident compensation of £250. This is comprised of:
    1.  £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing found in its response to the resident’s concerns about major works.
    2. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
29. The landlord must also provide evidence of compliance with this order within the deadline above.