Clarion Housing Association Limited (202100551)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202100551

Clarion Housing Association Limited

31 October 2022

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

This complaint is about:
1. The validity of the landlord’s Section 20 process in respect of major works;
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and related consultation process;
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to communal areas;
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought 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, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The validity of the landlord’s Section 20 process
The resident has said the landlord’s failure to tender its proposed major works programme correctly was detrimental to the estate’s leaseholders. He has provided evidence that suggests there were a number of administrative errors in the landlord’s contract listing. The landlord has disputed that these errors had any overall impact on its delivery of the major works.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) has powers to determine Section 20 matters. It can also determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. It is understood that if a landlord fails to carry out the full consultation procedures in the correct manner, it may not be able to recover service charges beyond the statutory minimum amounts. While this aspect of the resident’s complaint is better suited to the First Tier Tribunal (FTT), the Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and the lease began around 1987. The property is a one-bedroom flat on the ground floor of a block. The estate is comprised of four similar blocks. The resident is a legal professional. While other leaseholders also had concerns about the landlord’s major works, this complaint was brought to the Ombudsman on an individual basis.
The lease agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the block in adequate condition to allow the resident “reasonable enjoyment” of the property. It confirms that repairs and maintenance are the means to achieve this condition. The resident is obliged to pay the landlord an “annual maintenance charge” linked to its expenditure on block and estate expenses.
The landlord did not provide a repairs policy, so the Ombudsman sourced a document from its records. The document, effective December 2019, suggests the landlord’s repairs service operates on a broadly responsive basis. It confirms that communal repairs “must always be completed within 28 days”.
The landlord provided a copy of its complaints policy from March 2020. However, there was a more relevant document, effective December 2020, in the Ombudsman’s policy library. This assessment used the more relevant document. It shows the landlord aimed to resolve complaints within ten working days at stage one, and within 20 working days at stage two. Further, “first-time customer enquiries” were not considered complaints.

Summary of events

Around June 2020 the landlord wrote to the estate’s residents about proposed major works. It detailed an extensive programme of internal and external works, which it said would address problems including water ingress and health and safety issues. It also said a formal Section 20 notice would be issued in due course in accordance with the landlord’s statutory obligations. However, residents were invited to submit any queries in advance of this notice.
The resident raised objections around 15 July 2020. He said some of the works were unjustified and leaseholders were only liable for contributions relating to their individual blocks. The landlord should therefore detail the exact works to each block and the rationale for these works. Further, it should provide an estimate of each leaseholder’s individual costs. The resident requested the landlord’s supporting surveys, quotes and images. He also said its correspondence did not meet relevant legal requirements.
On 25 August 2020 the landlord wrote to residents again. Its letter responded to around 27 questions prompted by its initial correspondence. The landlord said it had contacted residents informally prior to its Section 20 notification. However, costs for each block would be provided in due course. Further, it had determined the scope of the works based on independent survey recommendations and information from its Repairs Team. The landlord said it was adopting a holistic approach, instead of spreading the repairs over several years, to obtain better long-term value for money.
The Ombudsman has seen several surveys relating to the estate’s electrics, ventilation and communal areas (including roofs, windows and balconies). Most of the surveys include recommendations and some of them predate the landlord’s above correspondence.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 25 and 26 November 2020:
1. The landlord issued the resident a Section 20 notice relating to: roof, window, electrical, external and internal decoration, structural and associated works. Its accompanying documents said his estimated individual contribution towards the programme would be around £20K. The documents included a rationale, an overall block estimate and instructions around how to inspect the specifications. The landlord said it expected to invoice the resident in the 2021/2022 financial year.
2. In a second letter to the resident, the landlord said it was re-serving the Section 20 notice to ensure residents had sufficient time to submit observations. This was on the basis it was aware some leaseholders had not received their notifications from an external printing provider. The letter said the consultation deadline would be extended (by one day) to 30 December 2020.
The landlord updated the resident in a letter on 2 December 2020. It said it would install three site compounds on the estate to facilitate the works. Further, these units would be delivered on 15 December 2020 and remain in place for the duration of the programme. It said the compounds would include welfare facilities and a site office. The letter also detailed the site’s working hours.
In an email on 7 December 2020, the resident asked the landlord for supporting documentation again. He said this was to establish if the works were necessary and whether his estimate was proportionate. He also said the landlord should not install any site infrastructure until the consultation process had ended. His main points were:
1. The contractor’s site preparation was a breach of the Section 20 process since the observation period was ongoing. Further, individual estimates other leaseholders received appeared identical to his own. In addition, it was pointless installing the compounds in December due to the upcoming holiday season. The site infrastructure, especially scaffolding, also presented security risks given previous break-ins on the estate. Its presence also breached the resident’s right to quiet enjoyment of the property.
2. The resident agreed with concerns raised by other residents. In particular, the programme of works should be spread over an extended timeframe to minimise the financial burden on leaseholders. Further, much of the programme could have been handled as routine maintenance, and funded through the landlord’s service charge. Instead, the programme resulted from the landlord’s “habitual lack of planned maintenance” and its costings were above market rates.
The parties exchanged emails between 10 and 16 December 2020. The landlord said scaffolding currently on the estate was not connected to the major works. Further, residents would not incur costs associated with the current site setup. However, should the works go ahead, the installed infrastructure would enable them to start promptly. In response to the resident’s follow up questions, the landlord agreed to provide information about the purpose of the scaffolding. With reference to its previous correspondence, it disputed giving insufficient information about the site compounds.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord notified the resident the observation period had been extended until 6 January 2021. On 14 January 2021, the resident chased the landlord for his requested information. He said the compounds were installed in mid-December 2020, but no meaningful work had been undertaken to justify their presence.
On 12 February 2021 the resident responded to correspondence from the landlord. He said it had failed to provide requested information, including supporting surveys, and the Section 20 process appeared to be a sham. Further, the information should be urgently provided before any works commenced. He asked the landlord to forward his concerns to its senior leadership, and urged it to cooperate with leaseholders.
The resident raised a formal complaint by email on 23 February 2021. He said the landlord had failed to inform, obtain agreement or coordinate the works with residents. An image showing a site cabin obstructing the view from the property’s kitchen window was attached. His main points were:
1. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance was inadequate over a number of years. As a result, issues the landlord previously noted remained unaddressed. This failure had impacted residents’ right to enjoy the estate.
2. This situation was exacerbated by the recent arrival of site cabins. Insufficient information had been provided about the cabins and the resident was concerned they were unjustified. As a result, he said, they should be removed without delay.
3. The landlord had “abused” the Section 20 process wasting significant time and resources. Its recent notification followed a previous consultation that was “shelved” around 2018. Its process lacked transparency or concern for resident hardship given the pandemic. Overall, most of the works were unnecessary and the landlord’s prices were uncompetitive.
4. The landlord’s Section 20 process was invalid and the works should be shelved. In addition to agreeing the scope of works with residents, the landlord should allow them to provide third party quotes. Residents currently felt harassed and the landlord often failed to respond to their requests. A more constructive approach was therefore needed.
The landlord responded informally over a number of documents dated 26 February 2021. The information seen indicates they included ventilation and electrical surveys amongst other documents. This was around seven months after the resident’s initial request for supporting information. The landlord largely disagreed with the resident’s concerns. The main points were:
1. The landlord assessed any reported repairs and either responded within set timescales, or included issues in upcoming programmed works. It disputed that delays had impacted residents’ right to quiet enjoyment of the estate. It said any repairs to communal areas should be reported to the landlord.
2. Though they may cause some inconvenience, the site cabins were necessary and would remain in place for the duration of the works. Residents were notified about the site infrastructure in November 2020. The landlord’s contractor subsequently issued a separate update confirming its arrival date. It was unlikely the containers would be used until after the consultation process.
3. No chargeable works were currently underway and the landlord had consulted residents informally and formally. It would provide a further update following the end of the consultation process. The information it had provided detailed the overall cost of the works and the price per item. Its contractor had priced the works in accordance with the landlord’s contract.
4. Undertaking major works during the pandemic may seem unfair, but the landlord had a responsibility to maintain the estate. It did not expect to request any contributions until September 2022. Repayment options could be discussed upon receipt of the landlord’s bill. There would also be an opportunity to review and query the landlord’s costs after its final 2022 account was produced.
5. While the resident’s comments were noted, the landlord considered its Section 20 process valid. In relation to resident requests, the major works were not yet approved. However, the landlord was sorry if the resident had been advised otherwise.
On 7 March 2021 the resident raised numerous additional concerns by email. He asked the landlord to “integrate” them into his previous complaint. While he acknowledged receiving some documents, he said the information provided did not relate to his block and confirmed the works were unwarranted. As a result, he refused to accept any associated charges. He also said the landlord failed to respond to recent correspondence and an unnecessary site container was blocking the property’s light. The below is a sample of the objections he raised:
1. The Section 20 process had been extended because the landlord failed to coordinate with residents, for example by providing requested documents. Further, leaseholders had the right to nominate their own contractor and the landlord’s tendering process was inappropriate. This was on the basis the landlord incorrectly advertised the major works contract.
2. Leaseholders were not liable for improvement costs so the landlord must have failed to consider the relevant lease agreements. Further, its costs were unreasonable and there was no legal requirement for many of the works. In addition, some of the surveys were several years old and the inspection results were good.
3. In relation to the electrical and ventilation systems, the landlord’s surveying firms lacked the relevant expertise to make recommendations. Nor did the survey reports detail the surveyor’s qualifications. Further, the estate’s ventilation system had been defective for years and was not a source of resident complaints.
On 13 March 2021 the resident raised an additional complaint by email. He objected to recently erected scaffolding on the basis residents were not consulted and no plan of works was in place. He said he was advised the scaffolding was installed to facilitate a roof inspection, and was necessary for health and safety reasons. However, when questioned, an operative was unable to reference any specific regulations requiring scaffolding. The resident said this experience was representative of the landlord’s mismanagement and lack of concern for leaseholders. The landlord subsequently said his concerns were passed to its leadership team for a response.
On 15 March 2021 the landlord notified residents that the Section 20 process was complete and the works could proceed. It wrote to them again on 26 April 2021 to say the works had been halted in response to additional observations from leaseholders.
On 2 April 2021 the resident updated the landlord about the scaffolding. He said, although the landlord failed to respond to his concerns in line with its previous email, the scaffolding was being removed having been in place for around three weeks without being used. He questioned the suitability of the landlord’s complaints procedure and confirmed he still wanted a formal response. On 8 April 2021 the landlord said its contractor would respond in due course. No information was seen to show it ultimately responded.
Around the same time, the resident chased the landlord for a response to his initial complaint. He also contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. He later told this Service that the landlord repeatedly sought to avoid raising complaints. On 12 April 2021 the landlord confirmed it had raised a formal complaint. This was around 50 days after the resident’s initial “complaint” email. The landlord’s later correspondence used 12 April 2021 as the complaint received date.
On 5 May 2021 the landlord invited the estate’s leaseholders to a virtual meeting. It said the meeting would be attended by its Planned Investment and Section 20 teams, along with representatives from its contractor. The information seen shows the meeting took place on 14 May 2021. The Ombudsman has not seen minutes from the meeting. Subsequent correspondence between the parties shows the landlord agreed to obtain new surveys with a view to reassessing the scope of the roofing works.
The resident sent the landlord further correspondence between 17 and 24 May 2021. In addition to contesting its scaffolding costs, his initial emails reported numerous repairs to the estate including obstructed block gutters, roof cleaning, obstructed sewers, debris, a broken meter cupboard and ivy. His follow up email said the landlord’s minutes did not accurately reflect the meeting. It also restated a number of the resident’s previous concerns. The key points were:
1. The landlord should not charge residents to install scaffolding to facilitate a new roof survey. The residents had already shared their own independent survey with the landlord, and, beyond urgent cleaning and gutter unblocking, it showed no roofing works were required.
2. The landlord’s proposal to use “class 0” paint was based on a report that deemed the estate “low risk”. It was therefore unreasonable and the cost was disproportionate given the works were not required. Further works were also questionable, for example the resident’s shed door was in good condition and the landlord did not have his permission to remove it.
The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the resident’s survey. The information seen suggests it recommended an alternative schedule of works, including roof cleaning. Further, the scope of these works was significantly reduced in comparison to the landlord’s own proposal.
The landlord updated residents on 21 May 2021. Its email suggests various documents, including meeting minutes and a revised estimated costs spreadsheet, were attached. The main points were:
1. The landlord had decided not to charge leaseholders for several aspects of the works. In addition, some of the chargeable costs had been reduced. Its revised charges were set out in an accompanying spreadsheet.
2. Residents would only be charged for 67% of the total “scaffold dependent” works. This figure was based on the proportion of works relating to the roof, which was chargeable. A 10% admin fee would also be capped at £500.
3. There were still a number of outstanding actions and the landlord would provide updates in due course. Deadlines were included with each action point.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 26 May 2021. This was around three months after the resident’s initial complaint. It awarded him £50 compensation to acknowledge its delayed response. It said it understood his concerns were addressed during the recent meeting. Further, that leaseholders had been issued a spreadsheet detailing costs which were removed or reduced. The landlord repeated its recent comments about outstanding actions and forthcoming updates.
On 31 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaints. He said they were mishandled and largely unaddressed. Further, the landlord’s response overlooked his emails from 17 and 24 May 2021. In addition to restating previous concerns, he made the following key points:
1. The resident had spent considerable time responding to the landlord’s proposed major works. For example, he was forced to review the terms of his lease agreement and read survey reports. He should be compensated for his time at a rate equivalent to his renumeration as a legal professional.
2. He also made numerous repeat requests to the landlord relating to both the major works and general repairs/maintenance. In cooperation with other leaseholders, he commissioned an independent survey. Further time was spent obtaining alternative quotes to show the landlord’s costings were unreasonable. He wanted compensation for the inconvenience and costs associated with the above.
3. The resident wanted confirmation he would not incur costs relating to the site compounds, which remained in place despite his requests to remove them. The cabins should be removed as soon as possible and the landlord should compensate the resident for the inconvenience associated with their placement.
4. During the meeting, the landlord confirmed it would proceed with ventilation works without charging leaseholders. However, it had not responded to the resident’s enquiry around future repair/maintenance costs. This was important because the ventilation would not serve the majority of flats in each block.
The landlord updated leaseholders by email on 1 June 2021. The email suggests a further virtual meeting had recently occurred. Further, that copies of its contractors quotes were attached to the email. The key points were:
1. The landlord’s tendering process was unaffected by an administrative error the resident reported. The landlord received 15 bids, for the major works contract, from relevant suppliers and no supplier complaints about the process had been received.
2. The best method of preventing water ingress through the roofing was still under review. An additional query about roofing warranties was also being investigated. The landlord did not currently provide regular cleaning of roofing and gutters on any of its estates, but it was considering this proposal. It would obtain a quote for reported works to the shed roofs and share its findings with residents.
3. The landlord’s contractor would remove rubble and debris once the works had started. Similarly, ivy would be removed from the walls but it was unnecessary to remove it from a tree. The contractor would also look to replace “tap cupboard” doors and frames once the works had started.
4. Blocked drains had been reported to the landlord’s responsive repairs team, along with leaking and defective external taps. The landlord would make enquires as to whether a trellis should be replaced. However, it would not be replaced if it was previously fitted by a resident
A further email update was issued on 18 June 2021. The landlord said all resident observations had been given due regard and the estate’s blocks had been released so works could commence. This was around seven months after the landlord’s formal Section 20 notification. It was also around six months after the site compounds were installed. The landlord said a programme of works would be shared with residents when possible.
Around the same time, the landlord advised the resident the use of class 0 paint was consistent with its duty of care to residents because it slowed the spread of flames in the event of a fire. Further, the painting works would be chargeable under the terms of the lease.
Between 9 and 16 July 2021 the parties exchanged emails about the class 0 paint. The landlord said it obtained legal advice that using a different type of paint did not represent an “improvement”, particularly since it was the standard type of paint to use in these situations. It was therefore equivalent to using a different brand rather than a different material. The resident disputed this statement based on the cost differential and asked for a copy of the landlord’s legal advice. When the landlord said it had already relayed its legal advice, the resident questioned whether appropriate advice had been sought.
On 19 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage two response. This was around 34 working days after the resident’s escalation request. It identified errors relating to the installation of site infrastructure, along with a delay in responding at stage two. The resident was awarded an additional £175 in compensation. The award comprised £150 in discretionary compensation for the site setup and inconvenience, and £25 for the complaint handling delay. This brought the landlord’s total compensation award to £225. The main points were:
1. The resident’s concerns around repairs and maintenance were discussed during the meeting in May 2021. Reported repair issues were logged and would be addressed as general repairs or programmed works.
2. The landlord was sorry the site infrastructure had been in place for longer than expected. It did not intend to commence works without consulting leaseholders. However, its initial Section 20 notice was inadequate and had to be re-served. Its relevant team subsequently arranged the infrastructure without realising that the consultation was still ongoing. Works were halted once the problem was identified.
3. The container outside the resident’s window did not relate to the planned works. Instead, it was connected to works being undertaken by the landlord’s Fire Team, which had advised the container would be removed by the end of July 2021. The landlord did not want to cause further delays by temporarily removing the site cabins while they were not in use.
4. The landlord had apologised for issues with the consultation process. However, it disputed that residents were not kept informed. Its correspondence from June and December 2021 detailed the works. It also notified residents about the Section 20 error. The recent meeting demonstrated its ongoing commitment to updating residents. In relation to coordination, the landlord had adopted virtual meetings as a result of resident feedback.
5. The landlord responded to the resident’s concerns around the pricing and justification for works during the meeting, and in subsequent correspondence. A further inspection of the roof took place on 13 July 2021 and residents would be updated soon. In relation to hardship, the landlord was aware of the difficulties presented by the pandemic. In response to resident feedback, it had revised the scope of the works and reduced the estimated costs.
6. The landlord had “a valid qualifying long term agreement” with its contractor, so it did not need to seek alternative quotations from residents. The resident’s claim it had abused the Section 20 process was disputed. Overall, though it was aware the dialogue was ongoing, it had engaged accordingly with the resident’s enquiries.
The landlord updated leaseholders by email on 23 July 2021. The email largely concerned its progress in relation to roofing, ventilation, electrical and balcony works. It shows a roof inspection was outstanding because the contractor’s staff were self-isolating. Further, the landlord was exploring “an alternative solution” in respect of the ventilation. To reflect the issues with the Section 20 process, the landlord said it would not be charging leaseholders the associated administration fee.
During an email update on 29 September 2021, the landlord notified the resident that it had decided to retain the existing ventilation system. It said this was to minimise resident disruption and reduce costs. Further, it was currently unable to provide a timetable for the works given the pandemic.
The information seen suggests the landlord issued a further update to residents around 15 October 2021. Its update template shows a significant reduction to the scope of the proposed roofing works. Further, CCTV surveys were completed to the guttering and the existing roof would be cleaned. It said the works would be guaranteed for 20 years and the landlord would request annual maintenance works to remove vegetation.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 27 October 2021 said repairs to a number of drains were completed on 18 August 2021. However, an external tap could not be replaced at this point because the landlord did not have the required stock. Further, a replacement would have to be ordered but the landlord was having difficulty obtaining them from its suppliers. The information indicates some of the resident’s reported repairs to communal areas were outstanding at this point.
During a phone call on 19 October 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman the majority of the major works were complete. Further, the landlord ultimately agreed to cover the cost of the roofing works. However, he had not received the landlord’s relevant final accounts. Nevertheless, it was understood his expected leaseholder contribution had been reduced to less than £10K. The resident’s main points were:
1. The quality of the landlord’s workmanship was poor and reported repairs were outstanding. The resident was unable to recall the specific details of any outstanding repairs during the conversation.
2. The landlord’s handling of the Section 20 process was also poor and his previous concerns about its tendering process remained valid.
3. The landlord installed class 0 paint at considerable expense to leaseholders. This was unfair because there was no legal requirement to use this variety of paint.
4. The site compounds were removed between mid-July and September 2021. Though the resident could not recall the exact dates, he felt they were in place for an unreasonable timescale overall.
5. Only a considerable compensation order from the Ombudsman would alter the landlord’s behaviour. Overall, his interactions with the landlord had been extremely time-consuming.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that receiving an estimated bill of around £20k was distressing for the resident. The timeline confirms the situation has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Further, the dispute prompted a significant degree of engagement from the resident. It is reasonable to conclude this was inconvenient. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
Unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate/award damages. As a result, we cannot consider the resident’s professional time. It may also help to explain that this assessment concerns the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. If the resident wants to pursue his recent concerns, such as workmanship issues, he should raise a new complaint with the landlord in the first instance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and the related consultation process

The timeline suggests the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s concerns albeit over an unnecessarily prolonged period. For example, the evidence suggests it considered the resident’s independent survey and ultimately reduced the scope of its roofing works. Further, it later agreed to bear the sole cost of the final roofing works. Proposed ventilation works appeared to have been scaled back in similar circumstances. The timeline also shows the landlord agreed to waive the Section 20 admin fee given the issues with the process. These were all reasonable actions given the circumstances.
That said, the landlord’s initial engagements with the resident about the works appear superficial. This is because it took the landlord around seven months, between 15 July 2020 and 26 February 2021, to comply with his reasonable requests for its supporting surveys. It was noted the landlord’s correspondence from around this time invited residents to submit queries. The landlord also failed to respond to his warning that the site infrastructure should not be installed until the consultation process had finished.
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord’s lack of active engagement resulted in inflated infrastructure costs incurred while the works were halted. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to recognise the distress the resident was caused during this period. His correspondence indicates he felt he was being pushed into making a significant contribution whilst his reasonable concerns were being unfairly ignored. The evidence suggests the landlord only began to listen more closely once the resident asked to raise a formal complaint.
It is reasonable to conclude a successful informal notification should enable a formal Section 20 process to operate smoothly. Further, that this overall situation was avoidable. The landlord should have identified its failure during the complaint journey and attempted to redress the resident. Given the circumstances, the above identified delay, in providing supporting information, represents a significant failure given its impact to the resident. The Ombudsman will therefore order compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen.
The landlord accepted that an internal error caused the site containers to be installed before the Section 20 observation period had ended. It also acknowledged the resident experienced inconvenience as a result. It awarded him £150 to address the impact of its failure. Though it later said the container obstructing his kitchen window was unrelated to the major works, no information was seen to support this assertion. Regardless, the information seen suggests the container was in place for an unreasonable timescale overall.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
From the information seen, the container in front of the property was unused between 15 December 2020 and approximately 18 June 2021, which is when the landlord said the blocks had been released so works could proceed. This represents a period of around six months. Given the timescale involved, the landlord’s award was disproportionate to level of inconvenience the resident experienced. It was noted the landlord’s stage two response did not attempt to quantify the overall timescale the container was in place, or the period which it was not in use. This could have helped the landlord to reach a proportionate figure.
In relation to the landlord’s use of class 0 paint, the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s legal advice. However, this Service has seen this type of paint specified for use in communal stairwells in previous cases. The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of both relevant contractors and legal professionals. Further, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord’s decision to use this variety of paint, and subsequently charge residents a portion of its costs, breached its legal obligations.
Given the above, this matter is likely to need consideration by either the FTT or a court. As a result, the Ombudsman cannot say the landlord’s response to the resident’s related concerns was unfair.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and the related consultation process. This is largely because it failed to acknowledge or redress a delay of around seven months in proving supporting documentation. However, the landlord’s compensation relating to the site infrastructure was also found to be disproportionate given the timeframe involved. This was a lesser failure given the landlord attempted to redress the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to communal areas

The resident’s correspondence indicates he may have reported similar communal repairs before the above timeline began. However, the first evidence the Ombudsman has seen is from around 17 May 2021. The landlord’s subsequent correspondence suggests it engaged appropriately with the resident’s reports. For example, on 1 June 2021 it agreed to remove ivy and debris, unblock drains and repair cupboards. This was reasonable action given the circumstances. However, no information was seen to show whether the resident’s reported repairs were fully resolved.
In contrast, its October correspondence indicates a tap repair was outstanding. That said, it cannot fairly be used to evidence a failure on the landlord’s part because it refers to a supply problem. However, the same correspondence suggests the drains were unblocked on 18 August 2021. This points to a short delay of around four days based on the period between 17 May and 18 August 2021. Though the resident later told the Ombudsman issues were outstanding, he was unable to recall the specific details.
From the information seen, the Ombudsman was unable to identify further evidence of failure in respect of this complaint point. However, the above identified delay represents service failure on the landlord’s part since the drains were repaired outside of the landlord’s applicable timescale. Based on the information seen, a written apology is sufficient to put things right for the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

It is accepted that the landlord issued a prompt informal response to the resident’s initial complaint in February 2021. It is also acknowledged its relevant complaints policy said first-time enquiries should not be treated as complaints. Nevertheless, this policy was unfair to the resident who specifically requested a formal complaint on at least two occasions during the timeline. No information was seen to show his 13 March 2021 complaint, about scaffolding, was ultimately handled in accordance with his request.
While the information seen indicates the landlord eventually assumed the cost of the roofing works, and presumably the associated scaffolding, the timeline confirms the resident was impacted by the landlord’s failure to treat his clear complaint requests appropriately. For example, in April 2021 he chased the landlord for a response and approached the Ombudsman for assistance. It is reasonable to conclude the situation caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. His comments from around this time confirm the landlord’s approach undermined his confidence in its internal complaints procedure.
The Ombudsman’s policy library indicates the landlord’s most recent policy document, interim 2022, still contains the above approach. Section 1.4. of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, published July 2020, said “a landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so”. Section 1.4. of the updated Code, effective April 2022, says “Landlords should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint.” Given wording the resident used, his complaints could not reasonably be interpreted as either a service request or an enquiry.
The above rationale points to unacknowledged delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, the £50 compensation it awarded at stage one appears to relate to the period between 12 April and 26 May 2021. However, the resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s informal response on 26 February 2021 and he asked for his additional concerns, from 7 March 2021, to be incorporated into his complaint. No information was seen to show the landlord attempted to redress the resulting delay of around one month between 7 March and 12 April 2021.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling, which was contrary to both the original and current versions of the Code. The resident experienced unnecessary distress and inconvenience as a result and the landlord failed to redress this or identify the full extent of the delays. As a result, the Ombudsman will also increase the landlord’s complaint handling compensation to put things right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the major works and the related consultation process.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to communal areas.

Reasons

The landlord failed to acknowledge or redress a delay of around seven months in proving supporting documentation about the major works. However, its compensation relating to the site infrastructure was also found to be disproportionate given the timeframe involved.
The timeline points to a short delay of several days in respect of the landlord’s response to a reported communal repair.
The landlord failed to respond appropriately to the resident’s clear requests for a formal complaint. This caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. It also failed to identify the full extent of its complaint handling delays. This meant its connected compensation award was disproportionate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1000 in compensation within four weeks comprising:
1. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about the major works.
2. £300 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delays and failures in respect of the site infrastructure.
3. £225 which the landlord awarded in its stage two response on 19 July 2021. If the landlord has already paid this sum it should be deducted from the above total.
4. £175 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified complaint handling failures.
The landlord to review its major works consultation process, in light of this report’s findings, and share details of its identified improvements with the Ombudsman within four weeks. This is with a view to using the resident’s experience as a learning tool to drive service improvements. The cost differential between the resident’s initial and final estimates should be a key consideration.
The landlord to review its complaints policy to ensure its compliance with the Code. The landlord’s policy around first time enquires has been shown to produce unfair outcomes in addition to being a source of resident dissatisfaction.
The landlord to issue the resident a written apology for the delayed communal drain cleaning with four weeks. Its letter should include an update on his repairs reported around 17 May 2021.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.