Read our new Corporate Strategy 2025-30 and Business Plan 2025-26.

Hightown Housing Association Limited (202348167)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202348167

Hightown Housing Association Limited

24 January 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety and cladding at the building.

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder and bought the property September 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom flat on the third floor. The landlord is a housing association and freeholder of the building.
  2. The government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary, the advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system (EWS) of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM). The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
  3. In December 2019, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association (BSA) and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 metres (six storeys) or below 18 metres where there were concerns about the safety of cladding materials. Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
  4. The government consolidated ‘Advice Note 14’ when it issued ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’ (BSA) in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance stated that ‘for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act’ and paragraph 1.5 stated that ‘the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height’. In response to the guidance, some lenders took the view that, if certification could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a zero valuation.
  5. The landlord wrote to residents of the building in October and December 2020. It then commissioned an external wall survey (EWS) on the property which was completed in December 2020. The survey, dated 13 January 2021, said:
    1. The building is “less than 18m in height, with the upper most floor level being approximately 15m in height above ground.” It consists of “ground and up to four upper floor levels.”
    2. The external wall systems that are present have a “detrimental impact on the overall fire safety of the building. The exterior of the development at this time does not comply with the consolidated [government] guidance [issued] in January 2020.”
    3. The current RICS EWS1 form rating is B2, meaning it was concluded that an adequate standard of safety is not achieved. Option B is for buildings where combustible materials are present in the external wall.
    4. The landlord had been told of the recommended remedial work required which included:
      1. Replacing timber decking on balconies.
      2. Replacing insulation within the cavity of aluminium clad areas.
      3. Remove and replace the timber cladding and insulation behind the timber cladding.
  6. The landlord wrote to residents again on 8 February 2021 with a copy of the survey. It said:
    1. It expected the remediation work to cost far more than was currently in the building trust fund.
    2. Unless alternative funding is available through the building guarantee or any government scheme, the work costs will fall to leaseholders.
  7. On 8 March 2021, RICS issued new guidance (effective from 5 April 2021) in relation to the EWS1, which clarified the criteria for deciding whether an EWS1 was needed. In the case of buildings of five or six storeys, an EWS1 form should be required where:
    1. There is a significant amount of cladding on the building (approximately one quarter of the whole elevation estimated from what is visible standing at ground level); or
    2. There are Aluminium Composite Material (ACM), Metal Composite Material (MCM) or High-Pressure Laminate (HPL) panels on the building; or
    3. There are balconies which stack vertically above each other and either both the balustrades and decking are constructed with combustible materials (e.g. timber), or the decking is constructed with combustible materials and the balconies are directly linked by combustible materials.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with 11 updates between June 2021 and September 2022. Subsequent communication within the scope of this investigation is detailed in the assessment section of this report below.
  9. The resident raised a formal complaint on 26 January 2024 in relation to unresolved fire risk issues identified in the EWS survey carried out December 2020. He said no remediation work had started and there was no clarity on when work would commence. He also said the lack of communication and delay in addressing critical safety concerns was deeply concerning.
  10. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and sent its stage its stage 1 response on 13 February 2024, as follows:
    1. It apologised for the delay in providing a complaint response (12 working days rather than 10) and arranged for a plant/flowers to be sent to the resident.
    2. It completed the EWS survey and wrote to residents in February 2021 with a copy of the report and the areas of concern.
    3. It said it expected work to be carried out in phases and some works could be delayed.
    4. It wrote to residents in June 2021 to advise it had written to the developer as it needed to establish what materials were used during construction.
    5. It wrote to residents in April 2022 to advise a fire safety expert from the building guarantee company had visited the block in January 2022. It was chasing whether it could claim against the policy.
    6. It held a meeting with residents in July 2022 to provide an update and answer questions.
    7. It instructed legal representation who advised it to obtain expert advice from a fire engineer. Following the advice, it arranged a residents meeting and waking watch (where suitably trained persons continually patrol all floors and the exterior perimeter of the building to detect a fire, raise the alarm, and carry out the role of evacuation management in an emergency.)
    8. It installed a new fire detection system and subsequently ended the waking watch.
    9. It obtained a second opinion through its legal representatives which identified:
      1. Extensive remedial works were needed.
      2. It needed to arrange a structural survey and make the developer aware of the findings.
    10. It acknowledged 3 years had passed since the EWS was completed, but that survey was superseded in May 2023 (copy of survey not provided to this service) and additional works are required to make the building safe.
    11. It was working with an experienced legal team, had incurred significant expenses, and was pursuing a claim against the developer and building guarantee policy.
    12. It hoped the full cost of remediation work would be met by the developer or the building guarantee policy. However, it was not able to offer the resident firm assurances around cost responsibility but was making every effort to limit liability for leaseholders.
    13. It could not provide a definitive timescale around when remediation work can begin.
    14. It may need to take further legal action if it could not negotiate a settlement with the developer or through the guarantee which could lead to further delays.
  11. The resident escalated the complaint 3 days later. He wanted clear answers in relation to:
    1. Whether leaseholders would be responsible for financing and undertaking remediation work.
    2. When he could expect remediation work to begin.
  12. The landlord did not uphold the complaint and sent its stage 2 response on 14 March 2024, in which it said:
    1. It hoped the full cost of the remediation work would be met by either the developer or through the building guarantee policy. However, it reiterated it could not offer assurances leaseholders would be absolved of all costs.
    2. It could not give a definitive timescale on when works would begin. However, it said:
      1. It was in the process of preparing a specification of works. Once finalised it would begin the tendering process which it expected to take 3-6 months.
      2. Any legal action may lead to further delays.
      3. Residents would be kept updated.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

  1. The resident contacted this service on 26 March 2024. He said no remediation work had commenced, and he wanted work to begin within the next 6 months. He said the delays left residents vulnerable and imposed severe limitations on their ability to sell or remortgage their properties, which caused financial uncertainty and distress. In a phone call with this service in January 2025 the resident said he had considered selling his property. However, he had not made the landlord aware of this. He also said he had been unable to re-mortgage with a cheaper provider due to the cladding.
  2. The landlord provided updates by email or virtual meeting in June 2024, July 2024, September 2024, October 2024, and November 2024 when it said it hoped to meet with the developer in early December 2024. It scheduled a further virtual meeting for 19 December 2024, but the meeting was postponed until 16 January 2025. In a letter to this service the landlord said it was pushing for the developer to fully remediate the building at their own cost.
  3. In December 2024 the government set out new targets to fix unsafe buildings in England as part of a new Remediation Acceleration Plan. The plan aims to address the perceived slow pace of remediation work, ensuring that buildings with unsafe cladding are swiftly remediated and that affected residents are supported throughout the process. The Government made it clear that remediation for buildings of at least 11 metres in height, including those between 11m and 18m, must be completed by 2029. The focus will be on buildings with the most dangerous cladding (e.g. ACM), with remediation for those properties set to start by March 2025.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The events of December 2020 to July 2022 are noted above for context, but there was no evidence of a formal complaint until 26 January 2024. This Service encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate (reflected at paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme). Therefore, we would reasonably consider events from January 2023 onwards. There was no evidence of any contact between parties in relation to the concerns until 12 April 2023. Therefore, this date is taken as the starting point for this investigation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety and cladding at the block.

  1. The lease agreement shows:
    1. The landlord is responsible to:
      1. Maintain and keep in good repair and to renew or replace as appropriate the external walls, structure, roof, and foundations of the building.
      2. Set aside such sum of money as the landlord considers desirable to meet the future cost to be incurred by the landlord in replacing, maintaining and renewing those items that the company has covenanted to replace, maintain or renew.
  2. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints published in May 2021 says:
    1. It is clear most landlords are taking a risk-based approach to inspections and, whilst this is rational, these plans do not appear to adequately consider the broader implications for all residents, especially those living in buildings below 18 metres. It is essential for landlords to provide a clear road map, with timescales, to all residents.
    2. Effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced and proactive. Landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every three months even where there is little or no change.
    3. Landlords should always address the individual circumstances presented in a complaint.
  3. The landlord wrote to residents on 12 April 2023 and said it would be on site on 26 April 2023. It wrote to residents of the building on 9 May 2023 and said it had commissioned a Fire Risk Assessment of the External Walls (FRAEW) and received the final report (not provided to this service) in April 2023. The landlord said:
    1. The report said there was no requirement for additional safety measures or a waking watch.
    2. It had instructed a specialised legal representative to progress remediation works.
    3. It would provide updates when available.

It was reasonable for the landlord to commission the FRAEW given the time that had passed from the December 2020 survey.

  1. The landlord wrote to residents of the building 10 days later and said it had sought a second opinion as its priority was the safety of residents. It was not clear what prompted this, however this was a reasonable approach to take. It said:
    1. It had arranged for a waking watch as a pro-active measure to ensure resident safety.
    2. The previous stay-put strategy was no longer in effect in the event of an emergency.
    3. Residents were invited to a virtual meeting for further updates.

These were all reasonable steps to take.

  1. The landlord held a virtual meeting with building residents on 25 May 2023. It was not clear if the resident attended, however the minutes noted 31 leaseholders and tenants in attendance. The landlord then wrote to all residents on 12 June 2023. It provided a link to the meeting minutes and said it had arranged for a new fire detection system to be installed later that month. This was a positive step to address fire safety concerns. It further managed the resident’s expectations that once the fire detection system was installed, the waking watch would end.
  2. The landlord provided an update to leaseholders via a page on its website for leaseholders in July 2023. It said the fire alarm detection system had been installed, fully commissioned and the waking watch ended following consultation with the fire service. The landlord acted reasonably by communicating a consistent message to the residents.
  3. The landlord wrote to residents on 4 October 2023. It said an additional external façade inspection would be carried out 2 days later by independent experts in the presence of the landlord and the developer. It further managed the resident’s expectations in that the inspection would involve opening external and internal communal areas, which was reasonable. However, it was not clear if the inspection took place. No copy of the inspection results has been provided to this service. There was no evidence of any update from the landlord throughout October to December 2023. This led the resident to email for updates on 3 and 15 January 2024. However, there was no evidence either email was responded to which represents a failing and led to the formal complaint being raised by the resident.
  4. The landlord used the complaints process to provide a detailed update and explain its position to the resident. This was a positive and managed his expectations. It also sent a small gift to the resident as an apology for the delayed complaint response which was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy. The resident remained unhappy with the response as although the landlord had responded to his complaint points, he believed it had not provided enough detail in its answers. The landlord reiterated in its stage 2 response that it was not able to provide assurances leaseholders would be absolved of all costs or definitive timescales as to when the works would begin. Given the situation and ongoing legal proceedings, this was a reasonable response. However, neither complaint response acknowledged or apologised for the failure to respond to the resident’s emails of 3 and 15 January 2024. Or the resident having to wait almost 6 weeks from when he first chased to receive an update.
  5. The evidence showed the landlord continued to update leaseholders via its website in June and July 2024 after the end of the complaints process. It reiterated there were ongoing legal proceedings and negotiations with the developer. The Ombudsman acknowledges such matters take time to resolve and it is beyond the remit of this service to comment on ongoing legal matter. There were further updates in September (via its website), October (when there was a virtual meeting), November (via its website), and December 2024 (via its website.) This was positive as it enabled the landlord to keep all residents of the building updated on progress.
  6. It is evident that this ongoing situation is distressing for the resident. Particularly as he has waited over 4 years for remediation work to commence. However, the Ombudsman understands that fire safety/cladding issues are complex. In this case, the situation is further complicated because the landlord is seeking to claim against the original developer for the cladding deficiencies and there are legal issues being considered. Overall, the landlord has been proactive and clear in its communication with the resident which is positive. It took reasonable steps to address fire safety concerns by installing a fire detection system. Despite a recommendation, the waking watch also continued in the interests of resident safety until the system was installed.
  7. However, the lack of evidence of an update from 4 October 2023 to 13 February 2024 caused the resident anxiety and distress. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report said landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every three months even where there is little or no change. Effective communication is important given the level of distress an absence of information can cause for residents in these circumstances through no fault of their own. There was therefore minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided, which it did not appropriately acknowledge or fully put them right. A finding of service failure is made and an order of £100 to be paid to the resident for distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with this service’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety and cladding at the building.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. Provide the resident and this service with a time-specific update outlining when it plans to commence the remediation works.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should continue to update residents and aim to do this at least once every 3 months, even when there is little update.