London Borough of Harrow (202316982)

Background

1. The resident lives in a block of residential flats. The landlord is the freeholder of the building. In August 2022, the landlord issued the resident with a section 20 notice outlining the proposed improvement works for the building and the estimated associated costs for which he was liable to pay. It asked the resident to submit any observations or suggestions within 35 calendar days.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about proposed improvement works.
3. We have also assessed the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The resident’s concerns about proposed improvement works.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

5. We found that:

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about proposed improvement works

6. The landlord repeatedly failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It also did not offer him appropriate redress and therefore did not go far enough to put things right.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord failed to keep proper complaint records, exceeded complaint handling timescales, and did not offer suitable redress despite acknowledging some failings.

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.

What we did not investigate

8. We cannot investigate complaints that concern the level, reasonableness, and liability to pay service charges. These are matters the First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber is more likely to be best placed to consider given their powers and expertise. However, we can consider complaints that relate to landlords communication with residents during the consultation process.

What we did investigate

9. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, landlords must consult with residents in instances where they intend to undertake qualifying works. These are works to a building, which the landlord is responsible for undertaking, where the costs exceed the prescribed amount of £250. The consultation takes the form of a section 20 notification that outlines the works, costs, and timeframes for consultation.
10. In 2020 the landlord issued a section 20 notice to the resident, notifying him of its intention to undertake major improvement works to the building. On 5 August 2022, the landlord sent the resident a further section 20 notice. It included 2 quotes from prospective contractors, stated that the resident’s estimated contribution was £8,037.30, and explained how to submit written observations by the deadline of 9 September 2022.
11. On 23 August 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. He explained that he had attempted to call earlier that day to arrange a meeting to review the summary of observations and to clarify the payment options available for his contribution to the works. The landlord returned his call the same day and followed up with 2 emails—providing the project manager’s contact details and setting out the payment options. This was a prompt and appropriate response.
12. Later that same day, the resident sent a further email. This included a request for the landlord to provide him with other leaseholders’ feedback on the proposed improvement works. He also set out his observations and suggestions on the proposed works and asked the landlord to:
    1. Justify the need for installing a new video door‑entry system, explain why cheaper alternatives like CCTV were dismissed, clarify how costs compared with other blocks, and confirm why he was being required to pay for an upgrade he believed was unnecessary.
    2. Explain how the costs for each item had been calculated, why the figures appeared disproportionately high, whether charges were applied consistently across the borough, and whether leaseholders were subsidising costs that should be paid by the council for tenanted properties.
    3. Explain the justification for the 12% housing management fee and why he should pay it given past service failings and confirm that the fee would not simply reward poor oversight of the upcoming works.
    4. Explain whether a gated entry was planned for the road and why such a measure was being proposed when the existing system worked well.
    5. Prioritise repairing visible deterioration to the building and address past quality concerns.
13. In an email dated 19 November 2022, the resident said he received an acknowledgement email on 24 August 2022, confirming it would reply within 5 days. The landlord provided a copy of this email. However, it was not date stamped, indicating poor record‑keeping.
14. The same day, the landlord shared the resident’s observations and suggestions internally and began to collate responses to his questions. However, we have seen no evidence that it responded to the resident’s observations within the 5-day response it promised on 24 August 2022, or at any point during the consultation period. While the landlord later stated within its complaint responses, that a “miscommunication between the planned investment team and leasehold team” caused the failure to respond, the available evidence does not explain when this occurred or why. The lack of timely communication and clarity demonstrates poor handling of the resident’s concerns.
15. Although we have not seen the compiled list of observations (including those submitted by other residents), the available evidence indicates that the landlord provided this list to the resident, alongside its stage 1 response. However, the resident requested to escalate his complaint, as he felt the information provided did not capture all his concerns.
16. Within his escalation request on 22 November 2022, the resident also said he was unhappy that the landlord had only given him 4 days to respond to the “second lot” of proposed works. Although we have not seen these records, indicating further poor record keeping, the landlord confirmed in its stage 2 response that it had issued a section 20 notice (for different works) on 20 September 2022 and had “wrongly” allowed only 4 days for a response. This again demonstrates inadequate communication with the resident. It was, however, appropriate that the landlord apologised to him and committed to investigating how the error occurred.
17. On 22 November 2022 and 6 December 2022, the resident asked the landlord again for a face‑to‑face meeting to discuss the proposed works and associated costs. On 13 December 2022, the landlord said that it would address his questions in its stage 2 complaint response. While it is appropriate for landlords to set out their position within complaint responses, the purpose of the complaint process is to review how an issue was handled—not to prevent residents from receiving answers to reasonable queries. By initially declining to engage with the resident’s requests for a meeting or provide information outside the complaint process it acted at odds with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) which states that landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint.
18. In its stage 2 response dated 15 December 2022, the landlord provided detailed explanations addressing each of the resident’s observations originally raised in August 2022. However, given that the resident had made comments on a matter with potentially significant financial implications, a delay of 118 calendar days was an inappropriate length of time for the landlord to take to respond.
19. The same day, the landlord contacted the resident to arrange a meeting for 19 December 2022 to discuss his observations. While this was a positive step, this was also total of 118 calendar days after the resident had first requested a meeting with the landlord. It is noted that the parties mutually agreed to meet on 16 January 2023.
20. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident at both stages of its complaints process for the delays in its handling of his queries. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy that was applicable at the time of the resident’s complaint. However, it was unreasonable that it failed to offer him an appropriate amount of compensation in recognition of the failures it had identified during its investigation. Its failure to do so was not in the spirit of our dispute resolution principles (be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes).
21. For the reasons outlined above, we have made a finding of maladministration. We have ordered the landlord to pay compensation to the resident, calculated in line with the landlord’s most recent compensation policy and our own remedies guidance.

22. The landlord provided a copy of its complaints policy, in place from March 2022. This set out that it operated a 2-stage complaints process. It aimed to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 3 working days. At stage 1 it would respond within 15 working days, and 20 working days at stage 2. These timescales differed from those set out in the 2022 version of the Code which stated that landlord’s should acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and aim to respond within 10 days from the acknowledgement. The Code further stated that landlords should respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Although the Code did not become statutory until April 2024, it is noted that the timescales in the landlord’s 2026 complaints policy and procedure now align with the Code.
23. We have not had sight of the resident’s original complaint, the stage 1 acknowledgement email, or any complaint related correspondence between the parties before the landlord issued the stage 1 response. This was at odds with the Code which stated that the landlord must keep a full record of the complaint, including the original complaint, and all correspondence with the resident. Despite this, within the landlord’s stage 1 response it did not dispute the resident’s claim that he made his complaint on 14 September 2022. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that this was a true reflection of events.
24. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 November 2022—45 working days after the resident made the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out that extensions may only be applied in complex cases, and the resident must be informed of the reason for the delay and given a revised response date. There is no evidence that the landlord provided any such explanation or update. Therefore, the landlord significantly exceeded the timescales set out in both its own policy and the Code.
25. The landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for the delay but did not offer compensation. It said the complaint handling delays were likely caused by a “technical error” and acknowledged that communication failures had occurred during its handling of the substantive issue. Given this, it would have been appropriate for it to provide a meaningful explanation of how and/or why the issues had occurred and explain what steps it would take to prevent it from happening again. Its failure to outline any learning or improvement demonstrates poor complaint handling, compared to the Code, as landlords are expected to show how they use complaints to drive meaningful service improvements.
26. The resident requested to escalate his complaint on 19 November 2022. The landlord appropriately acknowledged his request within the timescales outlined in its policy, on 22 November 2022.
27. The resident informed the landlord on 25 November 2022 that he wanted to “skip” the stage 2 process so that he could bring his complaint to us sooner. The landlord’s response, that it must issue a stage 2 response first, was fair, and in line with its obligations outlined in the Code.
28. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 15 December 2022. This was appropriate as from the date of acknowledgement, it was a response time of 18 working days against a target of 20 working days.
29. Therefore, while we are satisfied with some elements of the landlord’s complaint handling, we have made a finding of maladministration. To put things right for the resident we have ordered the landlord to pay him compensation. This has been calculated in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Learning

30. The landlord should provide refresher training to any staff involved in complaint handling, with the aim of ensuring where a failing has been identified, it offers appropriate redress in line with its compensation policy and our remedies guidance.

Knowledge and information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping was notably poor, and the lack of available documentary evidence made it difficult for us to assess several aspects of this case. These gaps contributed to delays, confusion, and missed opportunities to progress the resident’s concerns and complaint effectively. It should ensure that it maintains accurate, contemporaneous records of all correspondence with residents.

Communication

32. The landlord’s communication with the resident throughout the case was lacking. Good communication plays a key role in an effective housing management system, and the landlord should consider how it can improve its communication with residents.