Crawley Borough Council (202342908)

Background

1. The resident is the leaseholder of a property owned by the landlord. He reported various issues with the property, including damp and mould and cracking to an external wall throughout 2023. He asked the landlord, as owner to take action. The landlord carried out some works in August 2023. The resident was not satisfied with the speed of the works and complained on 11 September 2023. The landlord provided complaint responses in November 2023 and January 2024 promising to complete the works. It told the resident that it would need to survey the property and estimate costs. In March 2024, it told him that his share of the costs would be approximately £20,000. The resident protested at being asked to pay this much and discussed the matter throughout 2024 and 2025.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests that it should carry out repairs at the property.
3. We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found the landlord responsible for maladministration in:
   1. Its handling of the resident’s requests that it should carry out repairs at the property.
   2. Its handling of the formal complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The resident’s requests for the landlord to carry out repairs

5. The landlord delayed in responding appropriately to the resident’s reports of repairs.

Its handling of the formal complaint

6. The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint.

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 have not investigated

7. The resident reported the required repairs to the landlord in early 2023 and complained to the landlord that it had not done them in September 2023. At this point, the landlord had not told him that he would have to pay for these repairs and he assumed that the landlord would be responsible.
8. When the resident learned, in March 2024, that it intended to recharge him for the cost of carrying out the works, he was unhappy and continued to question why he should have to do so. He has asked us to investigate this matter even though it occurred after he received his stage 2 complaint response.
9. We cannot generally investigate matters which have not been through a landlord’s complaints process first. Further, we have no authority to investigate disputes of this kind. if a resident wishes to dispute a s.20 notice.  The resident can contact the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), should he remain unhappy with the landlords approach in this matter.
10. For these reasons, we have investigated only up until 4 March 2024. This was the date when the landlord sent the resident the estimated costs of the proposed works. If he wishes to challenge the cost to him of those works, he must go to the First Tier Tribunal. If he wishes to challenge the landlord for other matters which we can investigate, he must first complain to the landlord. If he is unhappy with its response, he can bring his concerns to us and we will investigate.

What we have investigated

11. The resident is a leaseholder. The landlord’s repairs policy (the policy) says that leaseholders are responsible for all works in their properties although the landlord is responsible for carrying out works. This means that the landlord will carry out works and invoice the leaseholder for the cost. Where works are likely to cost leaseholders more than £250, it will have to carry out a “section 20 consultation”. This will involve requesting quotes from various contractors to ensure costs are kept low.
12. A s.20 consultation should take 30 calendar days. After that, a landlord will inform leaseholders of the expected cost of the works to them.  Leaseholders will be charged a fair proportion of the overall cost of works. The sum will be added to their service charge.
13. The policy says that the landlord will carry out works for which it has responsibility within a preset timetable. It says it will carry out non-emergency repairs requiring priority attention within 7 calendar days and routine repairs within 28 calendar days. S.20 works cannot begin before the consultation is complete. We say that landlords must carry out works within a reasonable timeframe.
14. The landlord was responsible for significant delay over this period. The resident first raised the issue with a leasehold officer in early January 2023. He said that windows needed replacing, there was a crack in the external hall wall and water was leaking through the porch. He also complained about damp outside the front door, crumbling bricks and blocked and broken gutters. He also said birds were nesting behind the kitchen extractor fan.
15. The landlord’s repairs department failed to respond to 8 emails from the leasehold officer. When it did respond, in May 2023, it said that it could not carry out works as it could not disturb a bird’s nest while chicks were present. It was only when the resident said that the birds had left in July 2023 that it carried out any works.
16. Even then, the works carried out were minimal. It carried out only some plastering and works to the canopy. During these works, the resident reported that contractors damaged his front door. The landlord agreed to recompense him for a new door which was reasonable.
17. The resident says that the landlord’s contractors did not complete the works to the required standard and some work needed doing again. This appears to be an ongoing issue and we have no evidence which would allow us to say whether the works were adequately done.
18. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 complaint response of 30 November 2023 that it had failed to act promptly. It said that this was because it had a new computer system. It apologised, as was appropriate. However, it failed to offer the resident any compensation for the failure which, given the length of time since his first report of required repairs, we would have expected.
19. The landlord did agree to recompense the resident for any damage to his property caused by its failures. It asked him to provide evidence of the damage and the cost of replacements. This was an appropriate complaint response. The resident did not provide this evidence during the period covered by this investigation. The landlord was not, therefore, at fault for not paying the compensation it offered.
20. The landlord promised, in the stage 2 response that it intended to carry out works in the near future. It said it would arrange for a s.20 process to take place shortly. However, the consultation did not, in fact, take place until February 2024 after the stage 2 complaint response. It informed him of the estimated cost of the works on 3 March 2024.
21. Overall, the landlord delayed significantly in investigating the resident’s reports of required repairs and in arranging the consultation. More than a year passed between his reports of damp and mould at the property and providing the estimate of costs.
22. These delays were lengthy and justify a finding of maladministration. This delay caused the resident distress and put him to time and trouble chasing the landlord for action. The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to deal with the problems of damp and mould at the property as the lease and its policy said it should.
23. Our guidance on remedies says that, where we make a finding of maladministration, we should generally order a landlord to pay between £100 and £600 in compensation. In this case, because of the lengthy period of the delay and the presence of damp and mould, we have ordered a payment of £400.

Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out when and how a landlord should respond to complaints. Our findings are:

24. The landlord’s published complaints policy complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales. It says that is that it should reply at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days of receiving the escalation request. However, it can ask for an extension of up to 20 working days if necessary.
25. The resident complained on 11 September 2023. He received a stage 1 response on 30 November 2023, 58 working days later. This delay was inappropriate.
26. The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 14 December 2023. The landlord provided a stage 2 response on 19 January 2024. This was 23 days after the escalation request. However, the resident asked for a 4-day extension on 15 January 2023. Thus, the response time met the requirements of the policy.
27. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £100 in recognition of its failures at stage 1.