Broadland Housing Association Limited (202223230)

A blue and grey text AI-generated content may be incorrect.

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223230

Broadland Housing Association Limited

14 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s concerns about the accuracy of the service charges.
2. the resident’s concerns about the administration of her service charges.
3. the replacement of the resident’s conservatory.
4. the replacement of the resident’s Velux windows.
5. the associated complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the property since May 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord has advised us it is the freeholder. The resident told us that she does not recognise Broadland Housing Association as her landlord and considers it only to be a leaseholder that also manages her service charges. We have addressed this matter later on in the report. However, for our purposes we have referred to Broadland Housing Association as the ‘landlord’.
On 16 June 2022 the resident reported that the Velux windows in her bathroom needed to be replaced so that bathroom works could commence. And that her conservatory needed to be replaced because it was “falling to pieces” and rain was penetrating electrical cables.
The landlord sought quotes for the windows and conservatory replacement from different contractors between June and August 2022. During this time, the resident chased the landlord for updates on its progress. The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 August 2022 to explain that for major works for the conservatory was costing over £250. And it would recover the cost from the resident’s sinking fund.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed the Velux windows were replaced by 9 September 2022.
The resident made a complaint on 9 January 2023 because there had been delays replacing the conservatory. She explained it had been condemned in September 2021 by the landlord’s contractors. She asked it to replace the conservatory as it had promised. She also expressed concern over the way her window replacement had been handled.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 23 January 2023. It said:
1. it accepted the conservatory was “beyond repair” and needed to be replaced.
2. it had struggled to find contractors willing to quote for the work.
3. its main contractor was looking to use a sub-contractor for the installation.
4. it would conduct a site meeting with its surveyor and contractor on 31 January 2023.
5. it recognised that the type of work was subject to a 90-day consultation process under the Landlord and Tenant Act so the cost could be recovered from the sinking fund. However, to mitigate the delay this would cause it would pay for the work and later seek to take a fair proportion from the sinking fund.
6. it had considered seeking dispensation from the first tier tribunal for the consultation process, on the grounds of health safety. However, the legal advice was there was no guarantee of a successful outcome, so it had not pursued this option further.
7. it had completed the Velux window replacement. But it acknowledged the resident had been chasing it for updates and it ought to have kept her better informed.
8. it upheld the complaint and would inform the resident of a programme and start date for the replacement of the conservatory.
On 8 March 2023, the resident asked the landlord to pay her £1,500 compensation for the disruption caused over the previous 10 months. The landlord agreed to compensate the resident £1,250 and paid this to her. It said this was broken down as follows:
1. £250 for poor communication around the works due at the property.
2. £500 for its “considerable” delay in addressing the repairs.
3. £500 for failing to meaningfully engage with the “substance” of the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint on 11 April 2023 because:
1. the landlord had not completed the conservatory replacement.
2. its communications had been poor, in particular she said there had been delays in responding to her queries and providing a schedule of work.
3. there had been differences in the contractor’s drawings and the specifications that the landlord and the resident had agreed. These were delaying works.
4. the “utter frustration” had impacted her health.
5. she felt the landlord had “contravened” its legal obligations.
6. she did not feel it was right for the landlord to retrieve the costs for the conservatory from the sinking fund, because it ought to have replaced it prior to the start of her lease.

The resident later raised concerns about what she considered to be a lack of transparency about the procurement of goods and tendering contracts. She said she did not understand what criteria contractors needed to meet to be accepted by the landlord. Nor how the service charges were managed, including the landlord’s use of the sinking fund and service charge statements.

The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 7 June 2023. It said:
1. it had noted delays of over 12 months in completing the conservatory replacement, which had been installed, but required the downpipes to be completed for the work to finish.
2. the current delay in completing the work was because it needed to order a bespoke manufactured junction for the downpipes. It explained this could not be ordered off the shelf.
3. work would be carried out no later than 30 June 2023, but if the part became available it would install it earlier. It had asked for “this” to be expedited. It said it would track the progress of this through to conclusion.
4. it considered the time it had taken to complete the work was unacceptable and the process would be discussed at its next leadership meeting.
5. the resident’s scheme was the only one a ground lease holding concerning obligation to the external structure and certain internal parts. And that it found this “at times confusing for day-to-day management arrangements” for its staff.
6. it had found the procurement of contractors for the Velux windows and the conservatory were “clear examples” of how its procurement was inflexible when new individual solutions were required. And it needed to improve the “breadth of opportunity” to work with specialist suppliers. It said it would review its procurement regulations to see if it could increase its supplier list.
7. it felt it “may not be able to fulfil the management expectations” for the general running of the sinking fund and service charge statements. This was because of the individual nature of the lease.
8. an officer would contact the resident directly to “run through” the sinking fund and service charge statements to better understand the issues and “sort out improvements”.
9. it had discussed “the future” including the transfer of the freehold to each individual property to the current leaseholders. It considered the current management was not “core business” and felt in the short, medium, and long term it could fall short of the residents’ management expectations, “if not carefully managed”.
10. it considered the transfer of individual freeholds with a new communal management arrangement would be a “common sense approach”. And it would start those discussions to see if a common agreement could be made.
The resident referred her complaint to us on 2 October 2023 because:
1. she felt the landlord had neglected its responsibilities in maintaining its service charge accounts.
2. the landlord had not made any further progress on the discussions around transferring the freehold to her and other residents.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

When a resident brings a complaint to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated. After carefully considering all the evidence we have determined that some of the complaints, as set out above, are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Accuracy of the service charges

Part of the resident’s complaint was that she felt the landlord had been “negligent” in its management of the sinking fund and the service charges. She reviewed the landlord’s account statements and said she found financial “irregularities”.
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme states:

“The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”

This means that it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide whether the charge and/or increase is correct. What this service can assess is whether the landlord followed proper procedure, good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns that the resident raised. The resident can refer these issues to the First Tier Tribunal for a judgement.

Scope of the investigation

We recognise that the resident disputes that she has a landlord. However, she does accept that it has responsibilities under the lease for the structure of her property. And that it manages the service charges under the lease agreement. It is not for the Ombudsman to determine the exact nature of a legal relationship. This element is better suited to a court.
For our purposes, we are satisfied that the complaint is one we can consider because the resident is in a landlord/tenant relationship with the association. And because both parties have rights and responsibilities in respect of the property as per the lease. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of housing-related matters.
The resident explained during the complaints process that the landlord’s delays and poor coordination of the works were impacting her overall health. We cannot make determinations in relation to impact on health. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
During the resident’s communications around the conservatory installation, she raised concerns with the security of the internal door to the conservatory. She said the estate agents had raised this with the landlord before she moved in. Additionally, she said it took the landlord over a year to fix this issue with repeated attempts that led to a protracted resolution. This did not form part of the resident’s initial complaint or her escalation request. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. If the resident remains concerned about this matter, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord accordingly.

Conservatory

The landlord is responsible under the lease for maintaining the “main structure of the dwellings forming part of the estate, including the dwelling”. It is not in dispute that the resident’s conservatory forms part of the property. And that the landlord is responsible for maintaining its structure.
The resident said that the condition of the conservatory was an issue before she moved in during May 2022. She explained that it was condemned by the landlord in 2021. She said this ought to have been rectified prior to her taking on the lease. The landlord explained the property was vacant for 9 months prior to the resident taking on the lease. It said it could not comment on the condition of the conservatory during this period because it had not inspected the property between leases. It said, therefore, it had no record of the conservatory being condemned in 2021. Nor that the structure was unsafe. As such, it was unaware it needed to take any action before the resident’s reports in or around June 2022.
There is no legal obligation on the landlord to inspect the property between the transfer of the lease. In addition, there has been no evidence provided to us that indicates the landlord was aware before June 2022 that there were any concerns with the integrity of the conservatory. Therefore, there is no evidence to suggest the landlord was put on notice for this issue and ought to have taken any action before the resident’s initial reports about the conservatory.
Further, we consider that the resident would have had the opportunity during the conveyancing process to conduct a survey and ascertain the condition of the property, including the conservatory, before taking on the lease. Had the resident found an issue during this stage, it would have been a matter between her and the former leaseholder to resolve as part of the negotiations during the sale.
Considering these points, we do not consider it fair or reasonable to hold the landlord responsible for not taking action before the resident’s report.
The evidence shows the resident reported the conservatory was in poor condition on or around 16 June 2022. She said it could not be repaired as the structure was “falling to pieces” and rain was penetrating through a “large cavity” in the roof. The evidence shows that the landlord then took steps to contact its contractor to arrange a survey and associated quotation. As well as to explain the urgency of the situation. This was evidence that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports and progress an inspection of the conservatory.
The evidence suggests the survey took place on or around 21 June 2022. The landlord noted that it could complete remedial repairs, but it considered that due to the age of the conservatory, it ought to replace it. It asked its contractor to quote for the works, but they needed to survey the property before doing so. They did this on 7 July 2022.
On 17 August 2022 the first contractor provided a quote for the work. The landlord did not explain nor provide evidence of the reason for overall delay in conducting the survey or then gain the quote. As such, we could not be satisfied if this were an unavoidable delay or that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to progress the work during this time. This was a record keeping failure.
Following the initial quote, we note the resident wanted to confirm the guttering was being routed around the eaves of the conservatory and would drop down vertically to the other side. It is unclear why this concern arose. However, the landlord reasonably raised this with the contractor. It also requested a start date and an indication of the timescale for completion. The contractor responded to the query and confirmed the resident’s understanding of the guttering. They also said that lead times would vary until they could order materials. However, there is no evidence the landlord updated the resident. This was a failure to engage with the resident about her query.
There is evidence that 2 weeks after receiving the quote, the landlord emailed the resident and explained that it required a second quotation before it could proceed with the conservatory. It said it had arranged for a further visit by another contractor for 6 September 2022. We consider the landlord ought to have explained the process for tendering to the resident at an earlier opportunity. Further it ought to have been able to evidence it was actively seeking quotes to progress this process from the time of the resident’s report in June 2022. That it did not was a failure to be transparent about the process, manage the resident’s expectations, and demonstrate it was acting reasonably to progress the tendering.
At this time, it also explained that it needed to trigger a section 20 consultation with other leaseholders, together with the reasons why. While this was reasonable, it is unclear why the landlord did not mention this at the time it became aware, from the quote, that the cost met the threshold for the consultation. This was a failure to engage meaningfully with the resident at the earliest opportunity.
Following the appointment on 6 September 2022, the resident asked for an update on the progress of the work. She also asked for an update on the tribunal process and when a decision would be made. The landlord responded on 14 September 2022 and said it was chasing the quotation of the second contractor. And said it had contacted a third contractor for a quote. We note the resident had already tried to provide further quotes and provide different local contractors for the landlord to consider during this time. But there is no evidence it responded to her.
While we recognise the landlord may have required 3 quotes to evidence it had made a fair decision on the costings of the conservatory, there is no evidence it explained this to the resident. This was another missed opportunity to engage meaningfully with the resident at the earliest opportunity about the tendering process. And to manage her expectations about what it could do to progress the work. This caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident because she felt the landlord was not progressing the work in a timely manner.
Further, it is unclear why it took the landlord almost 3 months to engage a second contractor for a quote. The landlord told us that this was because of difficulty in finding contractors. However, the evidence does not demonstrate that it was taking appropriate steps to find contractors and mitigate the delay being caused to the resident by the tendering process. It is unclear if this was because of poor record keeping or a failure to share this information with us.
The landlord updated the resident on 25 September 2022 to explain that the second contractor had provided it with a quote. It said the quotations formed part of the “dispensation process” as well as informing the timescales for the completion of works. And that it would provide an update to her by 30 September 2022.
We consider the landlord’s update was reasonable and recognise that the quotations formed part of its ability to request dispensation and to schedule works. However, it is unclear why the landlord could not have explained this to the resident at an earlier opportunity. This would have managed her expectations around the “dispensation process” and the steps it needed to take before the works were likely to begin. That it did not caused her frustration, uncertainty, and time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates.
The resident also reported around this time that the roof of the conservatory was leaking. The landlord immediately offered to conduct a temporary repair, however, the resident declined this. She said she did not want to waste residents’ time and money on a temporary fix “when a bucket would suffice”. We consider the landlord acted reasonably in responding to the resident’s concerns about the leak. We also note the resident’s reasons for declining the works.
We have seen evidence that following a third contractor visit, sometime around 29 September 2022, it reasonably chased them for a quote for the conservatory work. It also asked for an indication of lead times. And said it would set the contractor up as an approved contractor so it could utilise them for future work. Given the resident’s overarching concerns about the procurement of specialist contractors, this was a reasonable action to take to extend the pool of contractors it could commission for work.
However, it is unclear whether the third contractor provided a quote to the landlord. We do not know if this is because it did not provide a quote or the landlord failed to record and share this evidence with us. In any event, there is also no evidence of the landlord taking further steps to chase the third contractor. As such, we could not be satisfied that the landlord was taking timely action to progress the works.
In addition, on 4 October 2022 the resident chased the landlord, as it had failed to provide the update it promised by 30 September 2022. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request for an update. However, we note it contacted its first contractor to explain it was trying to get dispensation from the First Tier Tribunal before it could “get [the work] moving”. It said it hoped to have “confirmation” that week.
Although there is evidence of the landlord communicating with the contractor, it did not show it was engaging with the resident to explain its progress, account for its delays, and manage her expectations about the process. This was a failure to communicate timely updates to the resident. This would have caused frustration and uncertainty to the resident.
The landlord raised an order for the conservatory on 9 January 2023 with its first contractor. This was 7 months after the resident had put it on notice of the repair. The landlord noted that some of the contractors had withdrawn from the process on 27 February 2023. However, it did not provide further information about this, so we could not be certain about what impact this had on the overall delays the resident experienced.
By 8 March 2023, the landlord had an initial list of the conservatory works. On 14 March 2023, it gave authorisation to commence the manufacturing of the conservatory. It is unclear, based on the evidence, if this was the earliest opportunity that it could order the conservatory.
The resident asked for a schedule of works on 4 occasions between 17 March 2023 and 5 April 2023. While the landlord did not receive this from its contractor until 5 April 2023, it did not evidence responding to the resident to explain its position. This was a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations and communicate with her about this information and its progress. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing as well as frustration because she felt that the landlord was not answering her queries.
The contractor said it aimed to complete the work in 3 phases between 2 May 2023 and 12 May 2023, subject to weather and staffing. The landlord reasonably provided this update to the resident as soon as it received it.
During this time (4 April 2023), the resident posed a series of questions. These were about the flooring in the conservatory, guttering, the door, and length of the guarantee. There is evidence the landlord was liaising with its contractor about these issues and discussing technical drawings of the structure. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It then reasonably wrote to the resident to address her concerns on 11 April 2023, including but not limited to:
1. confirming her understanding about the position of the guttering.
2. it agreed to alter the door as per her request and provided an updated drawing.
We note that the resident changed her decision about the door opening on 13 April 2023. The landlord asked the contractor to amend this. The contractor updated the design but explained it could adversely impact the timescales for completion of the work. On the same day, the landlord updated the resident and asked the work to commence on 2 May 2023. This demonstrates the landlord and contractor were acting reasonably by working with the resident to accommodate her specifications. And to manage her expectations around any impact of this on completion timeframes.
The resident then posed a series of questions about estate management while the works were ongoing. But did not indicate she agreed to start the work. The evidence demonstrates the landlord reasonably responded to this in a timely manner setting out the measures it would take to inform the local community, keep noise to a minimum and to plan for contractor entry into the cul-de-sac.
The resident then raised further queries about the soffit replacement to the interior floor on 20 April 2023. The landlord reasonably answered this query the same day. After which, the resident then agreed for the works to commence.
On 3 May 2023, the resident raised concerns with the guttering placement because it was not connected to the main downpipe. She was concerned about further delays to the work schedule as a result. The landlord confirmed the start date of the second phase of work, but did not confirm who was responsible for the guttering or when that would be completed. This caused the resident time and trouble chasing it for an answer.
The resident asked that the guttering be completed before the roof was completed the next day. The landlord explained that it did not want to hold up the works and would arrange for the gutter to be modified retrospectively. It said it would update her when it had a start date for this. Although the landlord explained its approach to the installation, it missed the opportunity to provide clarity on who was responsible for the guttering. It later confirmed the piping required was being manufactured because it was not an “off the shelf” design. The landlord delayed in explaining this development, which caused the resident further frustration and time and trouble chasing a response. This was evidence of poor engagement because it failed to answer all of her questions at the earliest opportunity.
We consider it was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would continue with the work so as not to delay the other phases of the conservatory installation. However, it ought to have responded more promptly to explain the reason for the delays. This would have managed the resident’s expectations at the earliest opportunity and not caused her avoidable time and trouble chasing it for an answer.

Post complaint procedure

In the landlord’s stage 2 response on 7 June 2023, the landlord said the guttering was still outstanding. And that it would give the manufacturers 3 weeks’ grace. It said completion ought to be around 30 June 2023, but if the part were available earlier, it would prioritise the work. We asked the landlord for an update on the installation at the beginning of our investigation, but it did not provide us with one. Therefore, it is unclear when the landlord completed the work to the guttering.

Conclusion

Overall, the landlord initially responded promptly to inspect the conservatory. However, it failed to demonstrate it was progressing the tendering process and managing the resident’s expectations around this. There were also numerous missed opportunities to provide the resident with information at an earlier opportunity. In particular we found there were frequent intervals where the landlord did not respond to the resident’s queries, or when it did respond it did not answer all of her queries. It is clear the resident spent a disproportionate time chasing the landlord over this, which caused time and trouble, distress, uncertainty, and frustration. This could have been avoided had the landlord been more proactive in its communication.
For these reasons we have made a finding of maladministration. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: “Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes”. The Service applies these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration identified.
During its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for its delays and poor communication and engagement. It offered £1,250 compensation as set out earlier in this report. In its stage 2 response it apologised for the resident experience. It also reasonably addressed the resident’s outstanding concerns by explaining it would:
1. provide an update on the guttering and track the progress through to conclusion.
2. review the case and discuss learning points at its leadership meeting.
3. review its procurement regulations to increase the availability of suppliers it could use for specialist works.
4. commence discussions over the transfer of the freehold to mitigate longer term concerns over its management responsibilities.
This demonstrated it had listened to the resident’s concerns, identified the problems with its tendering process, and proposed different solutions based on its learning to improve the management arrangements. This was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. We consider the compensation the landlord awarded was proportionate to address the failures up until March 2023. However, it is evident that after this the landlord continued to poorly communicate with the resident, and there were further delays with the guttering that ought to have been more carefully managed and communicated to the resident.
To address the impact of the landlord’s failures between April 2023 and June 2023, the landlord must pay the resident an additional £250 compensation. This is in line with our ‘Remedies Guidance’ for this level of finding. It must also review when it completed the work on the guttering. And assess whether it would be appropriate to award the resident further compensation for any delays and associated distress. It must also provide the resident with an update on what measures it will put in place to make its repair management more robust in the short term. And its discussions concerning the transfer of the freehold. We also recommend that the landlord publishes guidance for residents about its tendering processes for major/specialist work. This is to make this information easily accessible in the future.

Velux windows

On 16 June 2022 the resident explained that there were outstanding Velux window replacements in the bedroom and main bathroom. She said this was holding up her bathroom and carpet replacements. And she was concerned because her furniture was due to arrive out of storage shortly which was causing her anxiety.
On 21 June 2022, the resident expressed frustration that no firm date had been given for the work to commence. She said she understood this to be because the landlord was not in a position to decide a work schedule and were confined to use a particular contractor. She expressed concerns at the limitations this posed to achieving a competitive price. She also referred the landlord to Velux directly as a secondary contractor because they had been recommended as a quick and cheaper solution. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this. As such we were not satisfied it was engaging with the resident about her concerns.
Following this, there is evidence of the landlord arranging a survey for the windows with its own contractor and asking for timeframes for completion. It asked if an initial survey was required to inform the quotation. The contractor offered to survey on 1 July 2022 and said it did not expect the replacements would require scaffolding. It is unclear, based on the evidence, if the landlord had tried to action the resident’s report until she chased it on 21 June 2022. The landlord ought to have systems and processes in place to action repairs without the intervention of residents. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we consider the landlord could not demonstrate it was taking steps to progress the works to the window at this time.
The contractor provided a quote on 18 July 2022. During which time the landlord and contractor discussed the glass specification. This was because the contractor had quoted for thicker toughened glass, but it could not find a similar specification from Velux. It is unclear how the landlord chose to proceed regarding this matter due to a lack of evidence. Therefore, we could not be satisfied the landlord was acting reasonably to progress the window replacement.
We note on the 9 August 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said the installer had asked the landlord to send additional pictures of the positioning of the windows. The landlord actioned this appropriately with the installer 3 days later.
The landlord also sought a quote from a second contractor on the same day. Which was received on or around 25 August 2022, after the landlord chased them 2 days before. There is no evidence that it had tried to chase the contractor before this time. We consider that if the landlord was aiming to prioritise the window replacement (which it had indicated based on its communications with contractors) it ought to have been more effective at chasing the quote to seek to mitigate the delay to the resident.

Conclusion

The evidence shows the windows were installed by 9 September 2022. This was when the installer asked for feedback and payment from the landlord. However, it is unclear exactly when the windows were installed. This is due to a lack of evidence provided by the landlord. The confirmation from the supplier was 3 months after the resident’s report. While this is not necessarily an unreasonable timeframe for “major works” there was evidence to suggest the landlord could have acted more promptly to arrange quotes, chase surveys and to communicate with the resident.
For these reasons we have found service failure in the handling of this complaint element. This is because although the overall timeframe the work was completed was not unreasonable, the landlord’s poor communication caused the resident distress. Further it missed opportunities to progress the work which caused avoidable delays. During the complaints process the landlord did not explain its account of what happened during the window replacement. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns about its poor communications. To put things right the landlord must apologise for the impact of its approach on the resident. And pay her £100 compensation in recognition of this.

Service charges

The lease agreement sets out that the resident is responsible for paying a service charge to the landlord as “a contribution towards the costs and expenses of the maintenance and running of the property and the estate.”
Initially, the communications from the resident indicate she thought the landlord was liable for the costs of the conservatory. The landlord responded in a timely manner with the correct position in relation to the purposes of the service charges. As well as setting out the liability for the costs of major work. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
Part of the resident’s service charges go towards a sinking fund for the estate. This is used to pay for major qualifying works that would cost leaseholders over £250. If this fund is intended to be used, the landlord is legally responsible for holding a consultation with leaseholders before works are carried out. The process is designed to promote transparency and fairness in the management of service charges.
The evidence shows the landlord intended to mitigate the delay of the section 20 consultation process on the installation of the conservatory by seeking dispensation from the first tier tribunal. This was based on the need to act more urgently to carry out the repairs. The landlord sought legal advice on this and was advised there was no guarantee of success. Therefore, it decided not to action this route. We consider the landlord was proactive in assessing alternative avenues for how it could mitigate the delays for the resident from the consultation process. However, it was entitled to consider specialist legal advice it gained on whether this approach was feasible in the circumstances. And ultimately withdraw this measure.
The landlord concluded it would be fair to pay for the costs of the major work up front and to seek later to retrieve a “fair proportion “of this from the sinking fund. This was part of recognising its delays. As there was no legal obligation for it to cover the cost of the works, we consider the use of its discretion was applied out of goodwill. This was positive in the circumstances. Further, there was nothing precluding the landlord from retrospectively seeking to retrieve some of the cost from the sinking fund.
The resident explained during her escalation request that she felt there were financial irregularities in the landlord’s handling of the service charges. She said she had reviewed the statements for the accounts for the service charges and had found “anomalies”. Although we cannot assess the charges themselves, we can consider if the landlord handled the resident’s concerns reasonably.
The evidence suggests the landlord met with the resident and agreed that there were “accountable anomalies”. The landlord did not provide a record of the meeting. Therefore, we only have the resident’s limited submissions about what happened. While it was reasonable for it to discuss the issues with the resident, it ought to have recorded what was discussed and any actions it agreed to take. That it did not was a failure to record what happened and/or to share this with us. On this basis, we could not be satisfied the landlord took reasonable steps to address the resident’s concerns.
In addition, the resident explained that her neighbour’s fencing works were not carried out in line with the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. She said the landlord took the money from the sinking fund without doing a consultation with leaseholders, despite the value of the work being over £250. She said she found this alarming because it was not being consistent in its approach.
While the fencing arrangements were between the landlord and another resident, any related administration of the sinking fund for this work would have potentially impacted the resident. We note that the landlord did explain in correspondence to the resident during September 2022 and March 2023, that it could authorise qualifying works costing less than £250 per property without the need for a consultation. However, the resident submitted that the cost of the fencing work was over this threshold and no consultation with leaseholders had occurred. The landlord provided evidence that it had replaced rotten fencing and recovered the cost of this from the sinking fund. However, we could not be certain whether this was in relation to the fencing matter the resident raised. Further, the landlord did not respond specifically to this issue in its stage 2 complaint response.
We would have expected the landlord to have investigated this matter to ascertain whether it had followed the correct procedure based on the facts of the case. And to have included its findings in its stage 2 response so that it was transparent and addressed the resident’s concerns about this at the earliest opportunity. That it did not was a failure to fully engage with the complaint issue. This would have caused uncertainty and frustration to the resident.
The resident also asked the following questions as part of her escalation request:
1. why the accounts during 2021-2022 were delayed.
2. why her queries from the previous meeting had not been addressed.
3. who was accountable and managed the sinking fund.
4. who audits the accounts.
The landlord responded in its stage 2 response and said it would arrange for a member of staff to meet with her to understand her queries in more detail. It said the purpose of this was to make the statements more transparent for residents.
We recognise that the landlord felt it may have been helpful to have met with the resident to discuss her concerns further. However, it is unclear what a further meeting would have achieved, given some of the queries were reasonably straightforward. It would have been practical for the landlord to have provided its position on her queries about the management of the sinking fund, auditing, and the delay in issuing the previous accounts. That it did not was a missed opportunity to set out its final position on these matters at the earliest opportunity. As such, we consider it did not respond reasonably or promptly to address her concerns. This would have caused frustration to the resident because she did not get all the answers to her queries. This was a theme of the landlord’s overall handling of this complaint.

Conclusion

Overall, we consider the landlord acted reasonably to explain how the sinking fund was used and for which purposes when addressing the conservatory work. It also looked at opportunities to mitigate the delays posed by the consultation process. However, it did not engage with the resident about whether the consultation process was being followed consistently. It also failed to keep a good record of what it did to address her concerns around “financial irregularities and anomalies”. Therefore, we could not be satisfied it acted reasonably or at the earliest opportunity to address these issues. This caused the resident distress. For these reasons, we have found service failure in the landlord’s handling of this element of the complaint.
In line with our Dispute Resolution Principles, we do not consider the landlord recognised its failures and therefore it did not try to put things right. Given this would have caused further uncertainty and distress to the resident, we consider it should apologise for this. It must also pay the resident £50 in recognition of this. Finally, it must write to the resident to confirm the answers to her concerns as set out above.

Complaint handling

Our Complaint Handling Code 2022 (‘the former Code’) was in force at the time the resident made his complaint. This states that landlords must respond to complaints as follows:
1. issue a stage 1 within 10 working days of the date of logging the complaint. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
2. issue a stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord responded as follows:
1. it issued its stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint.
2. it issued its stage 2 response within 38 working days of the escalation request.
While the response times at the first stage of the process were in line with the former Code, the response times during the second stage of the process were not. There is also no evidence the landlord requested an extension or explained it delays during this time. This was a departure from the former Code. Further, we note that during the stage 1 response, there is no mention of awarding compensation for its failings. It was not until the resident asked that it consider doing so that it then considered this measure to put things right. While we consider compensation awarded during this time was fair and reasonable, it is unclear why this did not form part of the complaint response. We consider this was a missed opportunity to try to put things right for the resident at the earliest opportunity.

Conclusion

We consider the landlord delayed in responding at stage 2 of its complaint process, without good reason. Nor did it follow the correct practice in the circumstances. It also missed an opportunity to put things right by not awarding compensation until the resident requested it. This was not good practice. As such we consider there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It must apologise to the resident for its delay. And demonstrate it had conducted complaint handling training in the last 6 months that addresses response times and associated practices as well as putting things right during the complaint response.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about financial irregularities financial irregularities concerning the service charges is outside of our jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s conservatory.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the resident’s Velux windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the administration of her service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the replacement of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 28 calendar days of the date of this determination the landlord must:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failure found in this report.
2. pay the resident £450 compensation comprised of:
  1. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience and its delays relating to its repair approach to the conservatory replacement.
  2. £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its repair approach for the Velux window replacement.
  3. £50 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its handling of the resident’s concerns about the service charges.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience of its complaint handling.
3. assess whether it is appropriate to award the resident further compensation for any delays and associated distress from June 2023 to the completion of the conservatory works. It must write to us and the resident explaining its decision and associated calculation.
4. provide the resident with a written update about:
  1. what measures it will put in place to make its repair management more robust in the short term to medium term.
  2. its progress on its discussions relating to the transfer of the freehold to the resident.
5. write to the resident to address her queries about the service charges:
  1. whether it followed the correct procedure relating to the sinking fund regarding the neighbour’s fencing.
  2. why the accounts during 2021-2022 were delayed.
  3. why there were what she considered “anomalies in the accounting”.
  4. who was accountable and managed the sinking fund.
  5. who audits the accounts.

In doing we recognise it may need to contact the resident for any clarification it needs to fulfil this order.

evidence it has conducted complaint handling training in the last 6 months that addresses response times and associated practices as well as putting things right during the complaint response.
provide evidence to us of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

We recommend that the landlord publishes guidance for residents about its tendering processes for major/specialist work.