Hyde Housing Association Limited (202009776)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009776

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 August 2021

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of cladding remediation works including how long the works have taken to complete, the landlord’s communication about funding arrangements, and the impact the situation has had on progressing the sale of the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s decision not to refund the cost of the pre-sale information pack.
3. The length of time scaffolding was in place, which meant windows could not be opened.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The landlord is the freeholder.
The property is a flat situated in a purpose-built building (the building). The building has seven floors.
Advice Note 14 (AN14) will be referred to throughout the assessment. This advice note was issued by the Government 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 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. This guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’ (BSA), issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “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”.
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 value of £0.
In December 2019 the Royal Institution 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). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.

Summary of events

On 21 December 2017 the landlord wrote to residents confirming that it would be “carrying out external works to further improve the fire safety of the building” (the works). The landlord confirmed that the works would be starting in January 2018 “with an anticipated completion date of June 2018”. The landlord confirmed the works would not be recharged to residents.
On 2 August 2018 the landlord wrote to residents to provide an update on the works. The landlord explained that, during the course of the works, additional issues had been identified which required addressing in relation to the fire barriers behind the panelled sections. The landlord set out that these works were due to start in September 2018 and conclude in February 2019. The landlord confirmed that the residents would not be charged for the works.
On 20 December 2018 the landlord wrote to residents confirming that the replacement of the existing external wall insulation and the insulation behind the rain screen cladding would start “early in the New Year”. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience the delays had caused and reiterated that residents would not be charged for the works.
On 17 January 2019 the landlord wrote to residents to give “more details about the works” that were starting later in the month. The landlord set out key dates and advised that the works were due to be completed in October 2019.
On 22 March 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to explain that he was in the process of selling the property and the buyer’s lender had requested a “cladding report” in respect of the building which detailed the “current cladding systems installed”.
On the same day the landlord responded confirming:
1. That “no ACM cladding [was] present on the building”.
2. The cladding works currently underway were “due to other defects in the existing cladding systems” which it had communicated to residents in recent months.
The landlord concluded by confirming that its Homeownership Team would provide “a fuller response shortly”.
On 21 March 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident providing further details regarding the cladding on the building. The landlord advised that it would request that this information was included in the pre-sale information pack.
On 22 March 2019 the landlord provided residents with an update on the works. The landlord confirmed that the works were due to be completed on 18 October 2019. Within its update the landlord noted that “works [were] progressing well”. The landlord confirmed that a “new revised programme” of works would be displayed on notice boards in the building.
On 3 April 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to provide an update to assist with the sale of the property. Within its correspondence the landlord confirmed:
1. The details of “existing cladding”.
2. No cladding report was provided as the cladding on the building was not metallic and therefore the Government did not require it to be tested.
3. That it was replacing the cladding on the building “due to poor workmanship of how the cladding was installed, not because of the material that was used at the time of the build”.
4. The details of the works currently taking place.
5. A waking watch was in place while the works were outstanding to mitigate risk.
6. The cost of the works and waking watch was not being passed on to leaseholders.
On 10 April 2019 the landlord provided the resident’s solicitor with a copy of the “pre-sale information” for the property.
On 17 May 2019 the landlord responded to several queries from the buyer’s lender regarding cladding on the building. Within its response the landlord confirmed that leaseholders were not being charged for the works.
On 22 May 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out that the “answers [it had] provided [were] inadequate for multiple lenders and solicitors” to progress the sale of the property. The resident stated that further clarity was regarding detailing how the works would be funded.
On 28 June 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord following a Resident Association meeting on 27 June. In summary the resident said:
1. The property was “unsellable” as no one would lend on the property as it had been valued “as nil”. The resident confirmed that he had lost the buyer for the property and he was now unable to purchase a new home.
2. There was “one particular issue [he would like] further clarity on”, namely how the works would be funded.
3. During the meeting the landlord had “disclosed funding procedures” however had not provided this information following his enquiries on the sale of the property. The resident stated that the landlord’s “lack of assistance… [had] acted as a barrier to sale”.
4. Due to scaffolding, erected as part of the works, he had been unable to open both bedroom windows in the property and therefore he had been unable to enjoy the property.
5. The stress the situation was putting on him was “immeasurable”, including “constant debris, disruption, [broken kitchen window], uncertainty and emotional pressure”.
6. His “basic right to sell [the property had] been removed”.
The resident concluded by asking the landlord to confirm who he could sue and for confirmation that the works would be completed in October 2019 so that he could sell the property at that time.
On 8 July 2019 the landlord responded to the resident, following a chaser. In summary the landlord said:
1. The developer who built the building had gone into administration in 2010 and therefore there would be no assets to recover from it, if the resident attempted to make a claim against it.
2. It was unable to make guarantees “regarding future sales” other than confirming that it was “taking all reasonable steps to ensure that the fire safety issues [were] being fully addressed”.
3. Lenders had requested confirmation regarding the legal action it was taking to fund the works and confirmation that the service charge would not fluctuate by more than 10% in any year. The landlord confirmed that it would fund the works, it did not have the benefit of any NHBC policy, it could not make a claim against the developer as it had gone into administration and the property’s lease had a variable service charge.
4. It would be happy to discuss funding with a lender directly.
On 17 July 2019 the resident requested a meeting with the landlord in respect of his concerns as despite several months of communication limited progress had been made in respect of the situation. In response the landlord agreed to meet with the resident and a date was agreed for 15 October 2019 (the meeting).
On 2 October 2019 the landlord’s architect and clerk of works (the architect) wrote to residents to provide an update. The architect certified that “the refurbishment works currently being undertaken [would] comply with [the Government’s] AN14”. The architect also confirmed that the works were progressing and were due to be completed by the end of February 2020, “with site clearance and scaffold removal thereafter”.
On 9 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that the architect’s letter had been “rejected by three lenders”. Within their correspondence the resident reiterated that the scaffolding had been on the building for a protracted period of time.
On 18 October 2019 the landlord wrote to residents to provide an update on the works. The landlord confirmed that the works commenced in March 2019 and were initially progressing well. The landlord stated that regrettably the programme had suffered some delays due to “unforeseen technical and material sourcing issues which required further expert advice”. The landlord confirmed that that the works were now due to be concluded by the end of March/ early April 2020. Within its correspondence the landlord provided a timetable of key actions and confirmed that it would be hosting weekly drop-in sessions for all residents commencing 23 October 2019.
On 22 October 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord’s CEO, following the meeting on 15 October 2019. In summary the resident said:
1. He was unable to open the property’s bedroom windows due to the scaffolding which was in place to accommodate the works. The resident noted that the building “suffered from overheating”, the property had no ventilation and therefore the property was “too hot and uncomfortable”. The resident noted that he had invested in air conditioning.
2. During the works the property’s kitchen window was broken. The resident stated that while the window was repaired by the landlord, no compensation or apology was provided for the inconvenience.
3. During the works the balcony had “been a mess throughout” and was “unusable” and was only due to be cleaned by the landlord on completion.
4. Scaffolding was erected too early during the works. The resident noted that the scaffolding was not used for 13 months.
5. He had paid for a pre-sale pack costing approximately £300, however he had since learnt it was not necessary to progress a sale. The resident stated that the landlord should not have sold the pre-sale pack when it was aware that the property was unsellable.
6. The landlord had not been transparent in disclosing how it was funding the works.
7. It was unsatisfactory that he remained unable to sell the property, “with no resolution in sight”.
8. He believed that his wife had suffered a miscarriage due to stress after being told that the works would continue for another seven months.
9. He would like compensation.
On 11 November 2019 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his request for compensation.
On 19 November 2019 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for compensation confirming that it would be considered under its complaint procedure and a response provided by 11 December 2019.
On 13 and 18 December 2019 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint.
On 3 January 2020 the landlord confirmed that its stage one response would be delayed as it was waiting for information in order to be able to respond to the complaint.
On 8 January 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It was sorry that the process to complete the works had “not been as smoothly run as [it] would have liked, and for the length of time it [had] taken to allow [the resident] to bring [his] home environment back to normality”.
2. It was sorry that its customer care and communication had not been delivered to the level that it expects.
3. It was responding to new Government guidance in relation to fire safety as it emerged. The landlord noted that the most recent guidance was AN14.
4. It understood that the situation was “extremely frustrating” for those wishing to sell or re-mortgage their homes, however it was doing everything it could to resolve the issues they were experiencing.
5. The scaffolding was erected approximately one year before the works began when the initial contract of works was agreed in December 2017 which was specifically for cavity barriers only. The landlord confirmed that following further guidance from the Government, which lead to additional inspections, it identified that major works would be required which halted the existing contract. The landlord noted that the scaffolding remained in situ while a “redesign and new contract was agreed”.
6. The newly agreed contract commenced in January 2019 and additional scaffolding was added in line with the new contract. The landlord confirmed that the cladding replacement works began in March 2019 and had been ongoing since that time.
7. It was sorry for the duration of time it was taking to carry out the required works to the building. The landlord noted that it had held numerous drop-in sessions from October 2019 to provide updates however the resident had not attended any of these.
8. Works were being carried out on the balconies as part of the cladding replacement programme and it was aware that the property’s balcony remained in an unsatisfactory condition. The landlord noted that it would however be making good the balcony as part of the works.
9. The property’s kitchen window was damaged as part of the works, however it was repaired within a week. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience the damage caused.
10. It was sorry that the scaffolding was also impacting on the resident’s ability to control the temperature in the property. The landlord noted that the scaffolding was restricting the full opening of some windows.
11. It was exploring ways in which it could cool the building to help manage the temperatures in all properties across the building.
12. Solicitors acting on behalf of residents looking to sell their homes may request a pre-sale information pack from it, for which a fee was payable by the leaseholder. The landlord noted that there was no legal obligation on the resident to provide the pack to the purchaser of the property however it was recommended as it ensured that all parties involved in the sale had all required information to make informed decisions.
13. It was the “interpretation and reluctance to lend” by lenders which had “caused the loss of sales across the country”.
14. It had provided the resident with correspondence informing him of the ongoing project which could be presented to interested parties who wished to purchase the property.
15. It was under no obligation to comply with AN14, however it was committed to ensuring the highest safety standards for its buildings.
16. It was sorry if “any information regarding the pre-sale pack was not made clear at the time of requesting [it]”.
On 9 January 2020 the resident responded to the landlord’s stage one response. The resident stated that despite the landlord acknowledging failures there had been no offer of compensation.
On 31 January 2020 the landlord provided its final response. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had reviewed its stage one response and it would not be changing the decision or offering compensation.
2. It offered apologies within its stage one response to demonstrate the level of importance it places on customer satisfaction, despite the issues subject of the complaint being outside of its control.
3. Its stage one response demonstrated that it was being proactive in supporting leaseholders in respect of the impact of the Government’s guidance on fire safety.
4. It was under no legal obligation to comply with the Government’s guidance on fire safety however it was doing so in order to ensure the safety of its residents.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to confirm:
1. If it would be willing to waive the pre-sale pack cost if he found a new buyer.
2. If the works due to be completed on schedule.
In response, and also on 31 January 2020, the landlord confirmed:
1. The pre-sales pack was valid for six months, however if it had expired it would seek to ensure that the cost of pack was “at least” reduced.
2. The works were on track to be completed as set out in the latest schedule.
On 10 February 2020 the landlord wrote to residents to provide an update on the works. The landlord explained that due to “inclement weather” the works would be “slightly” delayed with the works completed by the end of March 2020 and scaffolding removed by the end of April 2020.
On 10 February 2020 also, form EWS1 was signed confirming that “an adequate standard of safety [was] not achieved and I have identified to the client organisation the remedial and interim measure required”.
In response to the outcome of form EWS1, and the publication of the BSA in January 2020, the landlord confirmed that the “scope of works” was expanded further to “include timber elements and to investigate brickwork”.
On 22 December 2020 the architect provided an update to the residents. In summary the architect said:
1. “Prior to the release of AN14 [the landlord] carried out intrusive inspections to the external wall and cladding at [the building] which identified combustible materials that required replacement. This strategy of carrying out intrusive inspections and replacing any materials which [were] not of limited combustibility [followed] the advice within AN14 which was released in December 2018. On 20 January 2020, the [Government] released BSA. The works completed at [the building] also [followed] that of the most recent updated Advice Note”.
2. It had been “appointed to propose a new design/ necessary remediation measures for the external wall and cladding which [met] current Building Regulations. No works [had] been carried out to the existing brickwork”.
3. “The replacement works [had] been completed… [and] a fire engineer had been appointed to provide form EWS1 which [would] be issued in due course”.
The landlord’s website contains updates for all of the buildings which it owns. In respect of the building the update is:
1. It was still addressing “some minor issues with the fire safety works”.
2. Due to the weather and the nature of some of the outstanding works, there had been some delays. It now expected work to be completed by mid-August 2021.
3. Form EWS1 was with its fire engineers.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident’s concerns were registered as a complaint in October 2019, and the landlord issued its final response on 31 January 2020. This Service is aware that following the landlord’s final response, additional works are being undertaken at the building in order to achieve compliance with the Government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding and to produce form EWS1.
The focus of this investigation is the matters which resulted in the original complaint and the landlord’s response to this. This would not extend matters which have occurred after the complaints process was completed.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident’s current situation is difficult and that he is in this position through no fault of his own. This is because until the landlord is able to provide certification, in line with the Government’s guidance, the resident is effectively in limbo as he is unable to sell the property as banks will not lend on it because of the potential fire safety issues.

The landlord’s handling of cladding remediation works

The evidence shows that in response to the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 and the Government’s subsequent guidance on fire safety and cladding the landlord has taken steps to comply with AN14 to improve the safety of the building and to remediate the cladding. This is appropriate, as while the guidance is not a legal requirement, it has been established as best practice.
The chronology of the case shows that the remedial works, subject of the complaint, began in January 2018 and were concluded in late spring 2020. This is a period of approximately 29 months.
While the Ombudsman accepts that 29 months is a prolonged period of time, the Ombudsman notes that while the works were live the Government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding developed and changed. This resulted in more works coming within the scope of the original work specification, which required additional inspections, planning and resources which the landlord had not previously accounted for. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s approach to incorporate the additional works into the original works specification was reasonable in order to achieve compliance with the guidance at the earliest opportunity and to avoid a second set of major works.
The evidence shows the landlord informed residents of the work in December 2017 and thereafter provided updates on the status of the works in August 2018, December 2018, January 2019, March 2019, October 2019 and February 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s updates were provided at reasonable intervals and contained appropriate information on the works. This included additional issues identified, key dates, reassurances regarding compliance with AN14, liability for the works and reasons for the delays. This was appropriate to ensure that residents were kept informed on the works and to help manage their expectations.
In March 2019 the resident informed the landlord that he was in the process of selling the property and requested information regarding cladding on the building and any associated remediation works in order to progress the sale. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the cladding on the building was reasonable. This is because throughout the period March 2019 through December 2019 the landlord did engage with the resident’s request for information by confirming:
1. Details of the existing cladding on the building.
2. Details of the works being undertaken to ensure compliance with AN14.
3. Timescales for completion.
4. It would fund the works and no recharge would be made to residents.
5. It would discuss funding with a lender directly if necessary.
The resident notified the landlord that he was selling the property in March 2019 which was approximately three months after the Government issued AN14. The Ombudsman notes that within the landlord’s updates regarding the status of the works between December 2017 and March 2019 the landlord did not inform residents that the cladding remediation works may impact on the ownership of their properties in relation to mortgages, staircasing and sales. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable that the landlord did not inform residents of any potential impact of the remediation works or AN14 during this period. This is because the impact of the guidance was not widely recognised within the sector until approximately mid-2019. The Ombudsman suggests that the landlord’s updates from October 2019 should have contained reference to the impact of AN14, which it did not do. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s failure to do so did not however adversely impact on the resident as he was aware of lenders’ positions at that time and therefore was able to make informed decisions regarding the ownership of his property going forwards.
While the Ombudsman notes that the resident is concerned that the landlord was not transparent regarding funding of the works, the Ombudsman has not found this to be the case. This is because the landlord confirmed that it would meet the cost of the remediation works and costs would therefore not be passed onto residents. In the Ombudsman’s view it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to provide any further details on its internal plans on funding as it was not directly linked to the resident’s occupation of the property. The Ombudsman notes that in a letter dated 25 March 2021 to the resident, the landlord confirmed that the resident had not been charged for the cladding remediation works which had concluded, however it would not be “paying for any other fire safety work” the property needed in the future. The landlord added that residents would be consulted on any future works.
The evidence shows that following the conclusion of the cladding remediation works in spring 2020 the landlord has committed to carrying out additional works, which are due to conclude shortly, in order to comply with the BSA. While the Ombudsman is unable to comment on the landlord’s handling of these additional works, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it is appropriate that the landlord is continuing to seek to comply with all Government guidance on fire safety on cladding to make the building safe and to obtain form EWS1.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord promptly took steps to repair the window which was broken during the works and committed to making good the property’s balcony following the conclusion of the works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate.

The landlord’s decision not to refund the cost of the pre-sale information pack

In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to reimburse the cost of the pre-sale information pack was reasonable. This is because the pre-sale pack was issued at a time when the impact of AN14 was not widely recognised within the sector, as set out in the preceding section. The Ombudsman has also not identified any evidence that the landlord required the resident to purchase the pre-sale information pack in order to progress the sale. The Ombudsman notes that a pre-sale information pack is common across leasehold sales in order to provide all relevant information in respect of a sale.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the information contained within the pre-sales information pack and can see that two Section 20 Notices, dated May 2018 and January 2019, were provided which referred to fire safety works including cladding. The pack set out that “these notices refer to long term contracts entered into for [its] housing stock as a whole, and the services provided [would] not affect every property – should upcoming major works to specific properties be expected, Section 20 consultation notices for qualifying works [would] be issued to all leaseholders prior to the start date of the works”. The Ombudsman is therefore satisfied the landlord was acting transparently regarding fire safety works which there was a potential for the resident to have to contribute towards.
Following the end of the complaint procedure, and on 8 February 2021 the landlord confirmed that the resident would not be charged for a new pre-sale information pack in relation to the sale of the property. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is appropriate as a good will gesture to recognise that the resident had been unable to sell the property for a significant period of time, which was through no fault of his own.

The length of time scaffolding was in place, which meant windows could not be opened

In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the scaffolding had been in place since January 2018 and for the duration of the period under investigation. The landlord also acknowledged that the scaffolding had restricted the full opening of some windows within the property. The landlord therefore apologised.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the scaffolding did impact on the resident’s enjoyment and occupation of the property, however the Ombudsman notes that the scaffolding was required in order to undertake the remediation works which were necessary to improve the safety of the building. The Ombudsman therefore considers that the landlord’s apology for the length of time the scaffolding was in place was proportionate to the impact which the resident would have experienced.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s complaint policy and procedure which was in operation at the time of the complaint. The landlord operated a two stage complaint procedure, with both stage one and two responses being provided within 20 working days.
The landlord registered the resident’s correspondence dated 22 October 2019 on 19 November 2019 as a formal complaint, providing its stage one response on 8 January 2020. The landlord therefore provided its stage one response approximately three months after the resident registered his expression of dissatisfaction. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is a protracted period of time and was therefore unsatisfactory. This is because a complaint process exists in order to ensure a complainant’s concerns are addressed within a specified timeframe and this timeframe assures the complainant that their complaint will be addressed without undue delay. The landlord’s delay in providing a response was therefore a missed opportunity by the landlord and would have resulted in unnecessary uncertainty and distress to the resident.
The landlord’s stage two response was provided within its service standard which was appropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of cladding remediation works.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision to not refund the cost of the pre-sale information pack.
3. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident in respect of the length of time the scaffolding was in place.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of cladding remediation works

The evidence shows that in response to the Grenfell Tower fire in June 2017 and the Government’s subsequent guidance on fire safety and cladding the landlord has taken steps to comply with AN14 to improve the safety of the building and to remediate the cladding.
While the remediation works to address the cladding took a prolonged period of time to complete, the evidence shows that this was due to the landlord having to update the scope of the original work specification in order to achieve compliance with the Government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding which was developing and changing throughout the period under investigation.
The landlord provided residents with updates on the status of the works at reasonable intervals which contained appropriate information on the works.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information regarding the cladding on the building was reasonable as it provided information confirming:
1. Details of the existing cladding on the building.
2. Details of the works being undertaken to ensure compliance with AN14.
3. Timescales for completion.
4. It would fund the works and no recharge would be made to residents.
5. It would discuss funding with a lender directly if necessary.
It was not unreasonable that the landlord did not notify the resident of the potential impact of the cladding remediation works or AN14 on the ownership of his properties in relation to mortgages, staircasing and sales in March 2019. This is because the impact of the guidance was not widely recognised within the sector until approximately mid-2019.
It was reasonable for the landlord to decline to provide any details on its internal plans on funding the cladding remediation works as it was not directly linked to the resident’s occupation of the property.
The landlord promptly took steps to repair the window which was broken during the cladding remediation works and committed to making good the property’s balcony following the conclusion of the works.

The landlord’s decision not to refund the cost of the pre-sale information pack

The landlord’s decision to decline the resident’s request to reimburse the cost of the pre-sale information pack was reasonable as it was issued at a time when the impact of AN14 was not widely recognised within the sector.
Within the pre-sales information pack the landlord provided information regarding fire safety works which there was a potential for the resident to have to contribute to therefore demonstrating transparency.
Following the end of the complaint procedure the landlord confirmed that the resident would not be charged for a new pre-sale information pack in relation to the sale of the property.

The length of time scaffolding was in place, which meant windows could not be opened

In responding to the complaint the landlord acknowledged that the scaffolding had been in place since January 2018 and for the duration of the period under investigation. The landlord also acknowledged that the scaffolding had restricted the full opening of some windows within the property. The landlord therefore apologised.
The landlord’s apology for the length of time the scaffolding was in place was proportionate to the impact which the resident would have experienced, as while the scaffolding did impact on the resident’s enjoyment and occupation of the property, it was required in order to undertake the remediation works which were necessary to improve the safety of the building

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint at stage one of its complaint procedure.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation in respect of its complaint handling within four weeks of the date of this letter.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints to ensure complaints are responded to in line with best practice.