Hastoe Housing Association Limited (202342487)

Background

1. The resident lives on the 10th floor of a purpose-built block. His property has exclusive use of a balcony. In October 2022 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block and asked them not to use the balconies following concerns raised during a structural survey. The resident asked the landlord for an update in December 2023. He raised a formal complaint later that month when he did not receive a response.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the balcony.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found there was:
   1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to concerns with the balcony.
   2. No maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Balcony concerns

5. The landlord failed to provide timely updates about the balcony issues. It’s offer of an apology did not reflect the distress, time and trouble caused to the resident.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy and the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

7. In August 2022 a potential buyer of the block instructed a structural assessment. The landlord did not commission the assessment. The landlord received a copy of the report, which recommended the balconies be taken out of use until they were supported or removed. The report stated that, although no current issues had been observed, the particular style of balcony had the potential to cause problems.
8. On 13 October 2022 the landlord wrote to all residents of the block. It explained that the recent assessment had identified “a potential issue” with the balconies and asked residents not to use them until further notice. The landlord assured residents it would provide a further update “shortly”.
9. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2022 and asked for an update. He said the letter he had received indicated the balconies were unsafe. The landlord responded to the resident 4 days later and said it was taking a cautious approach until it could clarify the information contained in the survey.
10. On 25 August 2023, the landlord wrote again to all residents of the block. It reminded them not to use the balconies. The letter appeared to have been prompted by reports of residents using the balconies rather than a deliberate effort to provide an update. The landlord said it was waiting for further direction about the use of the balconies but gave no additional details.
11. The evidence shows the resident received his first meaningful update when the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 December 2023. The landlord informed him it would identify the works needed and arrange for a suitable contractor to complete the works in the next financial year. This update came 12 months after the resident first raised his concerns.

12. In its complaint responses the landlord said the resident was not entitled to a partial rent rebate as the balcony did not form part of the property. The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the rooms included in his property. It does not include any outdoor spaces, such as a balcony. Furthermore, as a secure tenant, the resident was subject to a “fair rent”. The resident’s rent was last registered in 2013 and the information provided to assess the rent did not include any outdoor space, such as a balcony. The landlord’s communication around how it arrived at its decision about the decision not to offer a rent rebate was reasonable.
13. The landlord apologised for its overall communication about the situation with the balconies. It explained it would instruct a specialist to investigate the balconies further and identify any work that may be required. The landlord did not offer the resident compensation.
14. The evidence shows the landlord’s overall communication with the resident was poor. Its initial notification not to use the balcony contained minimal details and caused the resident concern. This was evident in his correspondence with the landlord. Despite committing to providing updates, the landlord failed to do this in a reasonable time frame, which added to the resident’s distress.
15. The landlord informed us it had difficulty accessing the required information as it had not commissioned the original survey. While this may have caused delays to understand the scope of the recommendations, the landlord could have communicated with greater transparency around these issues to help manage the resident’s expectations.
16. The resident told us the landlord’s lack of communication caused him distress. He said he had not received sufficient information to reassure him there was no immediate concern. At the time of writing this report, the resident remained unsure when the work would take place.
17. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so we consider whether the redress was in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
18. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its lack of communication within its complaint responses. Although its apology went some way to put things right, it failed to recognise the full extent of the distress caused to the resident. This leads to a finding of service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the balcony. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the distress, time and trouble caused. This is in line with our remedies guidance for failings which may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident.

19. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process in line with the Code. Its complaints policy sets out the timescales in which the landlord will deal with complaints:
    1. It will acknowledge and record a complaint at both stages within 5 working days.
    2. It will issue its stage 1 response within 10 working days from when the complaint was recorded. 
    3. It will issue its stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. 
    4. In the event it is unable to meet the response timescales, it will advise the resident of these in advance.
20. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in line with its policy timescales. Its policy was compliant with the Code. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

21. The landlord demonstrated good record keeping in respect of the matters we have investigated in the case. 

Communication

22. The landlord should take lessons from this case in how it approaches communication to residents about major works in the future.