London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202112117)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112117

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

29 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request that it buy back the property.
2. Decision to share the resident’s private medical information with the buyback panel.
3. Communication concerning the fire safety issues in relation to the resident’s property.
4. Response to the resident’s request to see invoices relating to her service charge statement.

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 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: The complaint about the landlord’s decision to share the resident’s private medical information with the buyback panel.
Paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme says, “The Ombudsman will not investigate 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
In May 2021 the resident wrote a letter to the chief executive officer which included sensitive medical information. The chief executive shared this letter with the landlord’s panel which considered the resident’s request that the landlord buy back the property.
Complaints about how an organisation, including a social housing landlord, has handled someone’s personal data are matters for the Information Commissioner’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 39 (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside of the outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The remaining complaints about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it buy back the property, the landlord’s communication concerning the fire safety issues and the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to see invoices relating to her service charge statement are assessed below.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the property which is a one-bedroom flat in a building of which the landlord is the freeholder. The only health or vulnerability issues recorded on the landlord’s tenancy records for the resident say that she was self isolating for Covid 19 symptoms on 16 April 2020.
The landlord’s reverse staircasing policy sets out its approach to buying back shares in a leasehold property from a shared owner in order to help them avoid repossession. The policy says that shared owners in severe financial distress can apply to the landlord and request that it buy back some of their interest in the property. The landlord is under no obligation to offer reverse staircasing and will judge each case on its merits. The landlord will only consider an application to reverse staircase if the resident is in severe financial distress and can evidence that he/she is at risk of repossession.
The policy also says that the landlord will consider every reverse staircasing application carefully and will request to see evidence that residents meet the criteria set out in its policy and to see evidence of the resident’s finances. All offers to reverse staircase are entirely at the landlord’s discretion. The landlord will only approve a reverse staircasing request where this will ensure that the resident will avoid repossession in the short-term and will have a sustainable financial future.
The landlord’s website says that owing to the volume of properties which cannot be sold because of fire safety issues it is not able to buy back homes unless there are extreme circumstances, such as buildings where residents must move out while works are carried out and this will take 12 months or more to complete.
Advice Note 14 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.
In June 2019 the Government issued an advice note on risks arising from balconies on residential buildings, regardless of height. The guidance set out that where a building has balconies which are constructed of combustible materials and thereby pose a risk of external fire spread then building owners should take appropriate action to manage that risk.
The Government’s guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, 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”. Paragraph 1.5 of the guidance notes 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 value of £0.
In January 2020 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 meters (six storeys). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert. Form EWS1 is required for buildings under 18 meters where specific concerns apply e.g., 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.
The landlord’s website says the following concerning the scheduling of building inspections in relation to the guidance, “As we own so many buildings affected by the guidance, we’re not able to inspect, test, and then carry out works on them all at once. Instead we must prioritise our buildings based on risk. Our highest risk buildings, defined by height, occupancy and building materials, among other factors, will be inspected first.”
Leaseholders have the right under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to inspect documents relating to their service charges within a period of six months from receipt of the summary. The leaseholder may write to the landlord requiring it to allow access to and inspection of the accounts, receipts and any other documents relevant to the service charge information in the summary. Facilities for inspection must be provided within one month of the request and must be available for a period of two months.

Summary of events

In 2020 the resident attempted to sell the property. In September 2020, in response to a prospective purchaser’s mortgage provider the landlord said that it was unable to provide an EWS1 form at that time. The landlord said that “As this property is under 18 metres, in line with RICS guidance an EWS1 should only be required if there are ‘specific concerns.’ We have previously shared information with the current resident detailing: – ‘Although the balcony decking is timber, the balcony structure is metal and the building façade is brick. There is no material present that would make the building high risk (e.g. HPL / ACM). Therefore, there are no combustible material apart from the decking which is a slow burn material and in the unlikely event of fire in this area the fire could not spread onto the façade as this is brickwork’.”
On 16 October 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord saying that:
1. She had served the landlord with a section 22 notice on 7 October 2020 asking to see actual invoices to justify her service charge statement for the year 2019/2020 and had yet to receive copies of the invoices.
2. She had asked for a clear timetable as to the provision of an EWS1 and an inspection of the building. She said that the building should not be classed as low risk as it had flammable material on its balconies and Kingspan K15 in its walls as insulation.
3. She wanted the landlord to provide her with details about how it was going to “mitigate the financial implication of diminishing leases due to [the landlord’s] inability to commission EWS1s.”
On 23 October 20220 and 28 November 2020 the resident sent emails to the landlord again asking to see the invoices relating to the service charge statement.
On 28 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that “As previously advised the decking is to be replaced in the future but due to the low fire risk it presents, more high risk schemes are being focussed on first. I am sorry but at this time I cannot confirm the inspection date for [the resident’s building], we will be releasing the timescale for inspection for properties under 18 metres from April 2021.”
On 7 December 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord saying that “Since you are unable to fulfil the term of my lease by justifying my service charge, making my building safe and in view of the fact that you are preventing me from selling my share due to your inability to provide an EWS1 certificate, I am requesting that you purchase back the share that I ‘own’ in this flat.” The resident said that she was asking the landlord to buy back the property on health grounds.
The landlord treated the resident’s letters dated 16 October 2020 and 7 December 2020 as a complaint (the first complaint).
On 11 December 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a complaint response saying:
1. EWS1 forms were a valuation tool, and not having one did not mean her flat was unsafe.
2. The fire risk assessment carried out at the building earlier in the year rated the building as low risk, meaning that no additional controls to the building were required.
3. It would share more information about the building with residents in April 2021.
4. It hoped that residents could staircase again as soon as possible.
5. It was sorry to hear of the health problems the resident was having and understood that her inability to sell the property had exacerbated things. As the landlord did “not want to see anybody stuck in their own homes” it had extended its subletting offer, so that a resident who could not sell their property could let it out.
6. That the cost of extending the lease would not be significantly impacted unless the term fell below 80 years. It had no evidence to suggest a flats value would be negatively impacted from its lease falling from 86 – 84 years. When residents did eventually sell their home if it had evidence to suggest that the value had been negatively impacted by having a shorter lease term, it would be happy to explore options on a case by case basis.
7. The resident’s property did not fall within the criteria of its buyback policy. It could only offer to repurchase homes where remediation work would take longer than 12 months, and homes could not be reasonably lived in during that time.
8. It understood that its service charge cost dispute would be dealt with separately, by its Service Charge Team.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same date saying:
1. As the building included timber balconies it could not be ‘low risk’ and there was Kingspan K15 in the insulation of our building.
2. She had explained previously to the landlord that subletting the property was not an option for her as she could not find a landlord willing to rent to someone who was in poor health and could only work part-time. Also, she needed to downsize and sell to be able to focus on her declining health and to finance the fact that she would soon no longer be able to work.
3. The landlord had breached the terms of the lease by failing to provide the resident with the correct evidence for the service charge.
4. She expected the landlord to purchase her share of the property.
On 22 December 2020 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s first complaint saying:
1. It had reviewed her concerns about K15 and had found no evidence that it was present in the building. The materials used were all deemed suitable for buildings below 18 metres.
2. The timber decking would be removed and replaced, but because of the risk it posed, compared to the rest of the landlord’s stock, this was being prioritised accordingly. As previously advised, it would have more information to share with residents in April 2021.
3. That her complaint had now exhausted its internal complaints procedure and she could refer the complaint to this Service.
On 10 February 2021 the resident’s MP sent an email to the landlord, which included a copy of an email from the resident dated 19 January 2021 raising concerns about the landlord’s refusal to buy back the property. The resident said the landlord’s policy on buying back properties had not been updated to take into account and mitigate the impact of the cladding issue
The landlord replied to the resident’s MP on 18 February 2021 saying that:
1. There was no legal obligation for the landlord to buy back the property.
2. Its buyback policy had been reviewed and updated in the past 12 months, therefore took into account the external environment and the impact of cladding and EWS1 certificates.
3. Under its policy the landlord would only consider buying back a property under exceptional circumstances where buildings were found to need major remedial work that render a property unmortgageable and residents cannot continue to reside at the property because of the nature of the works required. it would consider making an offer of a voluntary buy back of a property in the following circumstances:
  1. Where it is aware that the property is unmortgageable to potential third party buyers, and
  2. Where the remedial works require more than 12 months to complete and cannot be reasonably undertaken whilst the property is occupied.
4. As both parts of the criteria listed above did not apply to the resident’s building it was not in a position to buy back her property.
On 31 March 2021 the resident’s MP wrote to the landlord asking what evidence the landlord had that the property was not unmortgageable and how it could be confident that remedial work would be completed within the next 12 months
On 12 April 2021 the landlord replied to the resident’s MP saying that:
1. It knew that there was “a likelihood” that the property was unmortgageable to a third-party buyer, as mortgage lenders were currently requesting an EWS1 certificate before providing mortgage finance. However, it currently had a building inspection programme in place, and once the resident’s building was inspected it would then have an indication as to whether works were required, and if not when an EWS1 was likely to be issued, enabling the resident to sell the property.
2. That the second part of the policy criteria had not been met as there were no known dates as to when any remedial work would take place once the building inspection had been completed but there was no present evidence that:
  1. Any works were required, and
  2. If there were any works, residents would be expected to move out whilst they were undertaken.
On 24 May 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord’s chief executive officer saying that:

She had made the landlord aware a number of times that she had a long-term health condition that was affecting her ability to remain in employment, and she provided details of her medical condition.
The stress of the situation with the property was making her health condition worse.
She was 50 years old and didn’t have the ‘luxury’ to wait years for the landlord to survey and work on its buildings and produce an EWS1 certificate so she could sell the property.
She wanted the landlord to accept that it needed to buy back the 35% share she owned on the property as she was unable to sell it.
Subletting the property was not an option for her as she would not be able to secure a rental property for herself on her low income or cover the costs of having to buy a landlord licence.
There was no timetable for surveying the property and the landlord providing an EWS1 certificate.
This Service had produced a report asking social housing landlords “to review and consider individual circumstances when looking at the impact the fire safety scandal has on its leaseholders.”

The landlord treated the resident’s letter dated 24 May 2021 as a formal complaint and provided its stage one response to the complaint on 3 June 2021. In its response the landlord said:

The resident’s case had been reviewed by the landlord’s buyback panel on the 4 June 2021, and the resident’s circumstances did not meet its voluntary buyback policy and it was unable to buy back the property.

The panel had taken into account the resident’s current medical circumstances, using the additional information she had provided to it. It had considered the resident’s circumstances and had reviewed the information she had presented to it against the following exceptional circumstances criteria: critical financial hardship, vulnerability, political circumstances and health and safety.
It could support the resident by granting her permission to sub-let the property and supporting her to relocate temporarily.
It repeated that its voluntary buyback policy stated that it would only consider making an offer of a voluntary buy back of a property in the circumstances set out on its web site.
It did not have a legal duty to buy back homes from leaseholders, however, it did appreciate the difficulties residents were experiencing with selling their properties, and it was sorry that it was currently unable to provide the resident with the outcome she was hoping for.
The landlord’s buyback policy had been reviewed and updated in the past 12 months and took into account the external environment and the impact of cladding and EWS1 certificates.

On 3 June and 5 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord with her response to its stage one response. In her emails she said:

She had not been informed that a review panel would consider her buyback request.

She was not given the opportunity to present medical evidence or speak to the panel.
She was not provided in advance with the list of criteria on which the panel would make its decision.
She wanted to know who the panel was comprised of and why she was not considered to be vulnerable or facing financial hardship.
She was not happy that the landlord was still offering her sub-letting as an option.
She had not agreed for her private medical information and circumstances to be discussed in front of a panel without her prior, informed, written agreement.

On 14 June 2021 the landlord sent the resident its stage two response to the complaint. In its response the landlord:

Apologised that the resident was not informed that a review panel would consider her buyback request. The landlord said that it would update its internal procedure to ensure that this requirement was included in future.

Explained that the panel was comprised of its staff and had no formal or statutory basis. The panel considers what it deems to be relevant evidence that has been requested as part of the buyback application process and there is no provision for residents to address the panel.
Explained that it was not obliged to consider any buyback requests, and any offer to do so in cases of extreme circumstances was entirely voluntary and at its sole discretion.
Said that the panel did not dispute that the resident may be vulnerable and/or facing a degree of financial hardship but were not of the view that her circumstances were so extreme as to warrant the landlord buying back the property.
Apologised that its repeated offer of sub–letting was insensitive, however the offer was made as part of a genuine attempt to recognise the difficult circumstances in which the resident found herself and find a solution.
Apologised that it had not followed her request for all communication with her to be in writing. The landlord had spoken to the relevant staff and reminded them of the resident’s request. If the resident wished for the landlord to remove her telephone number from its records it could do so.
Confirmed that it had reconsidered the resident’s request to buy back the property and was satisfied that “the original decision was sound”.

The landlord’s stage two response dated 14 June 2021 was the landlord’s final response to the complaint confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
On 15 June 2021 the resident responded to the landlord’s final response by asking further questions about what the landlord was doing about staircasing as: “Our flats are currently un-mortgageable, valued as zero and will remain so for years if you fail to get on with providing an EWS1 and conducting remedial work.” She also said that the landlord had not provided any timetable for carrying out the remedial works or providing the EWS1.
The landlord responded on 24 June 2021 providing the resident with a link to the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyor’s cladding Q&As.
On 24 June 2021 the resident sent a further email to the landlord saying that she was asking specifically about the landlord’s staircasing policy and process “when it comes to building affected by cladding, fire safety issues or a lack of EWS1.” She said that according to her lease she could staircase at any time. However, without the landlord providing an EWS1 she could not do so and wanted to know what the landlord was doing about this and how had it amended (or not) its staircasing and valuation policy and why was it not pro-actively contacting shared owners about the issue.
The landlord replied the same day apologising if it had misinterpreted the resident’s query and saying that its approach to staircasing was as set out on its website. The landlord also said that the resident had now exhausted its internal complaints procedure regarding this matter and if she wished to continue to escalate her case, she should contact this Service.
On 25 June 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident saying “Thank you for your request to view all invoices relating to your 2019/20 final and I apologise for the delay in providing this. Please see below a link to your invoice pack.”

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident’s current situation is difficult and that she is in this position through no fault of their 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 she is unable sell the property as lenders will not lend on it because of the potential fire safety issue.
In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints published in May 2021 says:

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.

Effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced and proactive.
Landlords should always address the individual circumstances presented in a complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request that it buy back the property

The landlord’s decision not to buy back the resident’s property was appropriate as:

There was no legal obligation for the landlord to buy back the property.

The landlord’s Reverse Staircasing Policy says that all offers to reverse staircase are entirely at the landlord’s discretion.
The landlord’s website says that it is not able to buy back homes unless there are extreme circumstances, such as buildings where residents must move out while works are carried out and this will take 12 months or more to complete. This was not the case with the resident’s property.
The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response that its buyback policy had been reviewed and updated in the past 12 months, to take into account the external environment and the impact of issues with cladding and the provision of EWS1 forms.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on dealing with Cladding Complaints says that whilst it is not the Ombudsman’s expectation that landlords automatically offer options to buy back properties “we do expect landlords to have considered whether this is an option they can accommodate in exceptional circumstances. Landlords should have considered what those exceptional circumstances may be, adopting a holistic and empathetic approach to the range of circumstances that may impact residents.”
The landlord has demonstrated that it had considered the exceptional circumstances in which it will buy back properties, by stating its position on its website that exceptional circumstances are ones such as buildings where residents must move out while works are carried out and this will take 12 months or more to complete.

The landlord acted reasonably in apologising to the resident that it had not followed her request for all communication with her to be in writing. The landlord also put things right by speaking to the relevant staff and reminding them of the resident’s request and asking the resident if she wished it to remove her telephone number from its records.
However, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request that it buy back her property was unreasonable as:

In its complaint response dated 3 June 2021 the landlord informed the resident that her buyback request had been considered by its buyback panel on 4 June 2021 (the day after the date of the complaint response). Whilst the date of 4 June 2021 may have been a typo the landlord has not clarified to the resident when the panel meeting in fact took place.

The landlord did not inform the resident that a panel would consider her request. However, the landlord apologised for this in its stage two response.
The landlord’s buyback policy does not set out the procedure for a buyback panel to consider the request.
The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s buyback requests was inconsistent as there is no evidence to suggest that when the resident made her previous request that the landlord buy back the property in December 2020 the request was considered by a buyback panel before being rejected by the landlord.
The documents provided by the landlord to the Ombudsman do not include any record of the panel meeting. Whilst the panel meeting was not required under the landlord’s buyback policy, having decided to hold the meeting and given the level of communication with the resident about her buyback application, it would have demonstrated good practice by the landlord to keep records of the considerations of the panel.
The landlord did not address the individual circumstances presented in a complaint as, despite the resident making it clear a number of times that subletting was not an effective solution for her, the landlord continued to offer this as the solution to the resident’s issue.
1. Despite the landlord’s reverse staircasing policy saying that it will consider an application to reverse staircase if the resident is in severe financial distress and can evidence that he/she is at risk of repossession, in practice the landlord is only offering to buy back properties where the property is unmortgageable, and remedial works would take more than 12 months and require the resident to move out of the property. It is concerning that the landlord has specified circumstances in which it will buy back a property which in practice mean it has no discretion to do so in cases where a resident is experiencing extreme financial hardship or serious health and vulnerability issues.

For the reasons set out in the previous paragraph there was maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request that it buy back the property.

The landlord’s communication concerning the fire safety issues in relation to the resident’s property

As the Government’s expectations in relation to cladding and fire safety are only detailed in guidance there is an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chooses to comply with it.
It is clear from the landlord’s correspondence with the resident that the landlord intends to comply with the Government’s guidance in respect of the building and to obtain form EWS1. This is because the landlord has explained that it will be inspecting the building and completing any remedial works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is appropriate as, while the guidance is not a legal requirement, it has been established as best practice in relation to building safety and form EWS1 is required by lenders.
Within its correspondence to the resident and on its website the landlord explained that it is taking a risk-based approach to prioritising its buildings for inspection and remediation considering height, occupancy and known building materials. In the Ombudsman’s opinion it is appropriate that the landlord has shared this information, to provide an outline of its approach and to demonstrate that its approach in prioritising the inspections and remediation is fair and rational. The landlord also explained that the inspection and remediation would take a significant amount of time to complete. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate to manage the resident’s expectations.
While the Ombudsman accepts that a risk based approach is a reasonable method for prioritising buildings for inspection and remediation in relation to Advice Note 14, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s approach does not take into account that not all leaseholders are in the same situation or circumstances and may be significantly affected if they are required to wait for buildings with a higher priority to be dealt with first.
In this case the resident wished to sell the property but was unable to do so as form EWS1 was not available for the building. The Ombudsman cannot see that in considering the resident’s concerns in relation to form EWS1 the landlord considered the impact of its prioritisation policy on her individual circumstances, namely that its strict adherence to the policy meant that she would likely be unable to sell the property for a significant period of time which could be longer than leaseholders in higher priority buildings.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints says that “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.” Having informed the resident that it would be providing information about the timetable for inspecting the building in April 2021, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord has provided any updates to the resident about the timing of any inspections. This was unreasonable and, given the resident’s individual circumstances requiring her to sell the property, represents maladministration by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request to see invoices relating to her service charge statement

The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with a copy of a document referred to as “Complaint Response” in which the landlord explains to the resident how service charges are calculated and apportioned. However, the document is undated. The Ombudsman cannot therefore assess whether this response to the resident’s complaint about its response to the section 22 request was provided to the resident within the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
However, from the documents provided by the landlord it is evident that the resident served a section 22 notice on the landlord on 7 October 2020, but the landlord did not provide the resident with the requested invoices until 25 June 2021. The landlord took over eight months to provide the requested documents, despite the provisions of section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 that facilities for inspection of the requested documents must be provided within one month of the request. This represents maladministration by the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request that it buy back the property.
2. Communication concerning the fire safety issues in relation to the resident’s property.
3. Response to the resident’s request to see invoices relating to her service charge statement.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord’s decision not to buy back the property was appropriate its communication about, and record keeping of, the panel hearing was unreasonable and its approach to considering the resident’s buyback requests unreasonable. In continuing to suggest subletting as a solution the landlord did not address the resident’s individual circumstances.
While the Ombudsman accepts that a risk based approach is a reasonable method for prioritising buildings for inspection and remediation in relation to Advice Note 14, the Ombudsman cannot see that, in considering the resident’s concerns, the landlord considered the impact of its prioritisation policy on her. The landlord has not provided any updates to the resident about the timing of any inspections of the building and remedial works and therefore when form EWS1 will be provided.
There was significant delay in the landlord providing the resident with a response to the Section 22 notice.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident compensation totalling £775. This is comprised of:
1. £400 for the distress and inconvenient incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of her request to that it buy back the property.
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s communication concerning the fire safety issues in relation to the resident’s property.
3. £175 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delay in responding to the resident’s Section 22 notice.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to provide a clear timetable to the resident concerning:
1. The inspection of the building to demonstrate compliance with PAS 998 (which has now replaced the Government’s Consolidated Advice Notice).
2. Carrying out of any remedial works.
3. Provision of form EWS1.
The landlord is also ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to:
1. Review the applications it has received to date under its reverse staircasing policy and consider allowing discretion to consider buying back properties where a resident is experiencing extreme financial hardship or health issues.
2. Subject to the review set out in the previous paragraph, update the information on its website about the circumstances under which it will buy back a property.
3. Set out in more detail for residents the process whereby they can apply for reverse staircasing and the process the landlord will follow in considering such an application.