London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202202845)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202202845

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

31 March 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

This complaint is about:
1. The leaseholder’s assertion the landlord breached its legal obligations around handling service charge funds.
2. The landlord’s:
  1. Section 20 notices;
  2. Handling of a balcony design fault;
  3. Preparation for compliance with upcoming safety legislation;
  4. Response to a heat network consultation;
  5. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 34(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s preparation for compliance with upcoming safety legislation.
2. The landlord’s response to a heat network consultation.
The leaseholder requested detailed information about the landlord’s preparations for the Building Safety Bill and the Fire Safety Act. The information seen suggests this legislation was not enacted when the leaseholder raised his complaint. He also said the landlord should represent its leaseholders at a Government consultation concerning heat network regulation. This was on the basis a newly proposed regulation system would involve funding contributions from heat network users.
Paragraph 34(a) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman can consider complaints that relate to “the actions or omissions of a member which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, have adversely affected the complainant in respect of their application for, or occupation of, property”.
There was no evidence to show either the landlord’s preparations, or its response to the heat network consultation adversely impacted the leaseholder in respect of his occupation of the property. As a result, these concerns were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint was also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The leaseholder’s assertion the landlord breached its legal obligations around handling service charge funds.
The leaseholder has said contractual provisions in the lease agreement should override the landlord’s statutory exemption as a registered provider of social housing. If his interpretation is correct, the landlord may be obliged to hold funds gathered from leaseholder service charges in separate accounts. This could mean, in the event the landlord became insolvent, the leaseholders would benefit from the protection afforded by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS).
Paragraph 42(g) of the 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, other tribunal or procedure”.
The leaseholder’s assertion was based on some advanced legal arguments. It was noted the landlord referred them to its senior service charge leader for consideration. This was proportionate given the nature of the concerns. The Ombudsman was unable to find an established body of relevant case law. Since we were unable to refer to an existing framework for guidance, we were not best-placed to determine this aspect of the leaseholder’s complaint.
Given the above, the leaseholder’s assertion likely needs considering by either the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or a court. This issue is also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. We can consider his remaining concerns.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complainant is a leaseholder (the leaseholder) and the lease began in 2013. The property is a second floor flat in a block that needs recladding for fire safety reasons. The information seen suggests the block is around ten years old. The leaseholder is a legal professional who rents the property to private tenants.
The lease agreement confirms the provisions of Part V of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1987), which regulate service charges, apply to the lease. The leaseholder has said the landlord breached its contractual obligations to apply provisions contained in sections 41 to 45 of the above act. Section eight of the lease agreement contains provisions around notices. It confirms notices served under the lease “shall be served in writing and shall be properly served if served upon…the leaseholder at the Premises”.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.

Summary of events

Between August and September 2021, the parties agreed a settlement to the leaseholder’s water ingress complaint. It concerned a building design defect in a balcony above the property. The information seen suggests an external drainage issue, behind the block’s cladding, caused damp in the property for around four years from 2017. Having completed repairs, the landlord ultimately agreed to pay the leaseholder £6k in compensation.
Between October and November 2021, the leaseholder raised concerns that water ingress could recur in similar circumstances. Given the leaseholder’s previous experience, the landlord agreed to consider installing access hatches in balconies belonging to the property and the upstairs flat. On 8 November 2021 the landlord told the leaseholder it was having difficulties with its current contractor, so it was seeking a new contractor for the works.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 7 December 2021 suggests its contractor cancelled a scheduled appointment because the landlord failed to confirm the details in advance.
On 14 January 2022 the landlord issued the leaseholder a Section 20 Notice of Intention. It said it was looking to appoint a contractor to carry out its major works programmes under a qualifying long-term agreement. An appendix included a brief description of the works. It included a Building Safety Works column which listed: remediation, cladding and works required from Fire Risk Assessments.
On 16 January 2021 the leaseholder asked the landlord to confirm the outcome of its contractor’s recent visit. He said the landlord should: detail its plans for the upstairs balcony, confirm who would have access to the hatch and provide a drawing of its proposed solution, in addition to start and completion dates for the works.
The information seen suggests the leaseholder raised a formal complaint around 20 February 2022 following a number of informal enquiries. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this complaint. However, the leaseholder clarified his concerns in detail during his below correspondence with the landlord.
On 22 February 2022 the landlord acknowledged the complaint. It summarised the leaseholder’s concerns and invited him to clarify any issues. It said it would respond by 7 March 2022.
The leaseholder replied the same day. His main points were:
1. A recent Section 20 notice referenced costs for cladding. This was confusing because the block was due to receive remediation funding from the Building Safety Fund (BSF). Having sought additional clarification, the leaseholder was advised the notice referred to the costs of cladding maintenance. This caused additional confusion since it was not obvious that cladding needed maintenance.
2. The landlord should confirm the information given was correct. It should also provide details of the proposed maintenance works. Whilst Section 20 notices were sent by post for legal reasons, the leaseholder wanted to receive copies by email. This was on the basis scanning paper documents was time-consuming. The leaseholder expected a large landlord to have systems to facilitate sending documents by email.
3. The landlord took four years to repair a leak related to the balcony design defect. To prevent a recurrence, it agreed to install an access hatch to the balcony drain. This would enable clearance works if necessary. Though the landlord had obtained a quote for the works, their scope would not sufficiently address excess water. The leaseholder had provided a sketch outlining an alternative solution.
4. To resolve the problem, a quote and a drawing were needed to confirm the scope of the works was correct. Since it was confirmed the cladding remediation works would not impact decking on the block’s balconies, there was no reason to delay completing the repair.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord updated the leaseholder by email. It said fire safety engineers did not recommend replacing the block’s balcony decking. Further, the decking was not covered by the BSF funding. However, the situation could change since regulations were pending. The landlord would contact the leaseholder about the balcony hatch works in due course. The leaseholder replied the same day. He thanked the landlord for confirming the hatch works could proceed.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 7 March 2022. It responded to the leaseholder’s points in turn. The leaseholder’s complaint was largely not upheld. This was on the basis the landlord complied with its obligations and no service failures were identified. The response included a detailed explanation around the landlord’s credit rating and liquidity position. The main points were:
1. The landlord was aware residents were concerned by the inclusion of building safety works in a consultation notice. It was sorry for any inconvenience caused. It did not expect to charge residents for cladding remediation works in buildings taller than eleven metres. The notices were prepared before the latest government announcements and reflected information available at the time.
2. The Section 20 notices concerned a major works programme expected to last for up to 15 years. The landlord anticipated some cladding may require repair or maintenance during this time. There would be a further consultation in relation to the procurement and another notice would be served. However, the landlord was unable to confirm what works were required at this stage, which was focused on obtaining contractors to complete the programmed works.
3. Given the absence of an outlet, a hatch was being installed to resolve water pooling on the balcony. The landlord’s surveyor was leading the project and the works would be completed as a gesture of goodwill. The surveyor had spoken to the leaseholder and they were in the process of obtaining another contractor to produce a quote and drawings. The leaseholder would be updated in due course.
4. In accordance with Section 58 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1987), the landlord was exempt from a requirement to hold sinking or reserve funds separately. It was required to provide residents an annual account of each scheme’s sinking fund. It met its obligations by issuing a final service charge statement every year. The landlord had no plans to move to a trust account system. Its financial viability was monitored by the Regulator of Social Housing.
On 8 March 2022 the leaseholder asked to escalate his complaint. His email confirmed none of his complaint issues were resolved. The leaseholder’s main points were:
1. While he was grateful for its apology about the consultation notice, the landlord’s response was narrow and replicated information now available on its website. The response failed to acknowledge distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s “unclear, inaccurate and potentially misleading” information. The landlord should be aware that cladding was a highly sensitive matter for leaseholders.
2. The response failed to explain how similar errors would be prevented. Nor was any information provided about the systems in place to ensure the landlord cross-checked between departments. A corrected letter and Section 20 notice should be issued to residents. The information should include a clear explanation of the changes reflected in the document. Further, the landlord should explain the steps it would take to ensure Section 20 notices would be emailed going forward.
3. The landlord failed to provide a clear complaint outcome in relation to the balcony defect. Its response “merely” repeated information the leaseholder had provided. Delays to the repairs, which caused the leaseholder distress and inconvenience, were not acknowledged. The landlord previously provided contradictory information and it specified the works incorrectly. The leaseholder’s own drawing was later misconstrued as a quote. To date, there was no completion timescale and the leaseholder had not seen a drawing of the proposed works.
4. In relation to the service charge funds, the landlord’s exemption explanation was contrary to other aspects of the lease agreement. The landlord had therefore breached the agreement. “However remote” the possibility of insolvency was, leaseholder funds should be ringfenced. The landlord should explain how its current arrangements complied with the terms of the lease agreement.
5. The landlord failed to respond to an enquiry about the measures being taken to improve the efficiency of the block’s heat network.
The landlord confirmed the escalation on 10 March 2022. It said the complaint was awaiting allocation but there were currently delays at stage two. It was therefore unable to provide a formal acknowledgement timescale.
In early May 2022, the parties exchanged emails after the leaseholder asked for an update. The landlord confirmed his complaint was active and apologised for the delay. It subsequently issued a formal stage two acknowledgement on 13 May 2022. Within days, it told the leaseholder his complaint would be reassigned to a senior member of staff given its complexity.
The leaseholder’s correspondence to the landlord on 16 May 2022 suggests both parties agreed that only the upstairs flat required an access hatch. Further, a proposed “bottom hatch” shown in a recent sketch was unsuitable.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 10 June 2022. This was around three months after the leaseholder’s escalation request. The landlord apologised for the delay, along with any distress or inconvenience caused. It was attributed to a “significant backlog” of complaints at stage two. The response contained links to information about the G15 and one of its publications. The leaseholder’s core complaint issues were not upheld. The main points were:
1. The landlord had responded to a number of Section 20 observations about the cladding. All residents would be given a summary of these observations during the next phase of the consultation process, along with the landlord’s responses. The landlord was currently unable to confirm what cladding maintenance works would be required. However, it was mindful the contract spanned a period of 15 years.
2. Since it was legally obliged to issues them by post, the landlord could not provide Section 20 notices by email. It was also unable to send group emails to the residents of individual blocks. Further, not all residents had provided an email address. The landlord could respond to general points by email.
3. A works order was now raised in relation to the balcony hatch. The landlord was currently awaiting a start date from its contractor. It was sorry for the delay and any inconvenience caused. It also acknowledged the leaseholder had received contradictory information. It was making efforts to resolve the situation as soon as possible.
4. The landlord referred the leaseholder’s concerns about the lease agreement to its service charge leader, who confirmed it complied with all the applicable sections of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1987) referenced in the agreement.
5. The landlord was satisfied its stage one outcome was fair. However, it could see the leaseholder had chased complaint updates on multiple occasions in March and April 2022. As a result, it awarded him a total of £190 in compensation comprising: £70 for inconvenience, £50 for distress, £50 for time and effort and £20 for the delayed stage two response. The landlord was in the process of recruiting additional complaint handlers to reduce delays.
The leaseholder updated the Ombudsman on 6 August 2022. His email broadly restated his original concerns. In relation the balcony, he said the landlord was having problems accessing the upstairs flat. Nevertheless, a hatch was first proposed around two years ago and the landlord had failed to update him. Further, the landlord’s supervising staff had changed over time, along with its appointed contractor. The information seen suggests broader issues around the block’s cladding caused delays prior to the beginning of the above timeline (see paragraph 26 for an example).
In a further update on 13 August 2022, the leaseholder said he had raised another complaint about the landlord’s handling of the balcony hatch. Further, it was prompted by the landlord’s failure to respond to an email on 13 August 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen the leaseholder’s original complaint.
On 3 November 2022 the landlord issued a stage one response. This was around 12 weeks after the leaseholder’s above update. It said the upstairs flat had agreed to provide access for the hatch works. Further, the landlord would complete a CCTV drain survey before installing the hatch. It aimed to complete the works by 30 November 2022. It also said annual maintenance would not be required because the hatch would allow the neighbour to clear any blockages. However, the landlord would cover any associated costs in the event further damage occurred.
The parties exchanged further emails between 4 and 7 of November 2022. The leaseholder said it was unclear whether his complaint had been upheld. Further the landlord failed to consider the distress and inconvenience he incurred chasing a solution for around 18 months through various channels. The leaseholder subsequently accepted the landlord’s offer of £200 in compensation comprising: £150 for time and effort and £50 for inadequate complaint handling.
Correspondence between the parties suggests the following events occurred in January 2023:
1. The leaseholder escalated his complaint because the landlord missed its 30 November 2022 completion deadline.
2. The upstairs neighbour refused a scheduled appointment because the landlord’s engineer was unable to confirm their identity.
3. The landlord applied for an access injunction against the neighbour.
4. The landlord confirmed the works were complete.
5. The leaseholder asked for the contractor’s completion report and drain survey results.
On 16 February 2023 the landlord issued a stage two response. It confirmed the works were complete. The landlord awarded a further £170 in compensation comprising £50 for time and effort and £120 for inconvenience over a three month period. This brought the landlord’s overall balcony compensation to £370 in total. The leaseholder accepted the additional compensation during an email the same day.
The leaseholder updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 27 March 2023. Though he broadly restated his previous concerns, he said timeliness, transparency and quality issues were a consistent theme during his interactions with the landlord, along with inadequate processes. During a follow up email, he provided additional evidence covering the period between December 2022 and February 2023. He also said the landlord failed to provide details of the completed balcony works despite several requests for the information.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the leaseholder has experienced significant issues relating to the landlord and the property. For example, around 2020, his application to re-mortgage the property was declined due to the block’s cladding. Further, the landlord awarded him substantial compensation in relation to the long-term leak associated with the balcony defect. The timeline confirms the leaseholder has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The information seen suggests the leaseholder maintains frequent contact with the landlord, including with members of its leadership team, about a range of issues. It may help to explain that this assessment is focussed on the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s formal complaint, which is broadly reflected in the above timeline. As a result, any issues he raised outside of the above complaint journey are beyond the scope of the assessment. The Ombudsman can consider his other concerns when he has obtained a relevant stage two response.

The landlord’s Section 20 notices

In its stage one response, the landlord apologised for any confusion arising from the inclusion of building safety works in its Section 20 notice. It said the notice reflected the information available when the letters were issued. However, its approach subsequently changed following new Government announcements around cladding remediation. No information was seen to show the leaseholder disputed this explanation. It is recognised cladding remediation is a developing topic. Given the circumstances, the landlord’s apology was appropriate.
The timeline shows the leaseholder was later told the notification referred to cladding maintenance works. This indicates a degree of inconsistency in the landlord’s information. The timeline shows, when the leaseholder asked for further clarification, the landlord was unable to provide additional information about the proposed cladding maintenance. Based on previous cases the Ombudsman has seen, planning major works often involves forecasting over an extended timeframe. Like most projections, an element of risk is involved.
Given the information provided, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the block’s maintenance needs during its forecasting. This includes any maintenance related to newly installed cladding. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that excluding cladding maintenance from the landlord’s long-term forecasts may result in leaseholders incurring significant one-off charges later in the maintenance cycle. Since this could represent a poor outcome for some leaseholders, the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say its approach was inappropriate.
The landlord’s January 2022 Section 20 correspondence gave notice it intended source a contractor for the major works programme. Its stage two response said the programme would be subject to further consultations. Further, leaseholders would be able to participate in this process and the landlord would respond to their observations. The Ombudsman was unable to point to any failures in respect of this approach, which complied with the landlord’s legal obligations and included due regard to procedural fairness.
The leaseholder has said the landlord should issue Section 20 documents by email. Whilst his preference is understandable, the lease agreement shows properly served notices must be issued in writing to the property. This implies official documents must be issued by post. The information seen suggests there is an equivalent requirement in the legislation applicable to major works programmes. The landlord is obliged to meet its legal obligations. It is not obliged to issue official notices according to the leaseholder’s preference.
Ultimately, it is for the landlord to decide whether it wants to issue additional electronic copies of its formal correspondence. It is reasonable to conclude this would involve an increased workload and possibly extra resources. Further, such an approach could create confusion around “properly” served notices. In other words, there are costs and benefits to the leaseholder’s preference and weighing them is an internal matter for the landlord. Given the above, the Ombudsman was unable to fairly say the landlord’s approach was inappropriate.
In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s apology was sufficient to put things right in respect of its January 2022 Section 20 notice. From the information seen, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to include cladding maintenance in its long-term major works projections. The landlord is obliged to serve official documents by post. It is for the landlord to decide if it wants to issue additional electronic copies.

The landlord’s handling of a balcony design fault

The leaseholder has said it took around 18 months for the landlord to install a balcony hatch. The landlord has not disputed this timescale. The information seen suggests it was awaiting developments in relation to the block’s cladding for at least part of this timeframe. Further, the leaseholder’s neighbour may have contributed to delays later in the timeline. It is recognised there was no evidence of water ingress into the property from August 2021. Nevertheless, the timeline points to a number of avoidable delays, communication issues and missed deadlines.
For example, it shows a communication error caused an avoidable delay between 7 December 2021 and mid-January 2022. Further, a similar error occurred when an engineer was unable to provide identification around January 2023. Though the timeline suggests it was aware the hatch works could proceed in February 2022, little information was seen to show why it took until around June 2022 for the landlord to raise a relevant works order. From the information seen, it was difficult to quantify the exact delays the landlord was responsible for.
However, the wording of its complaint correspondence suggests the landlord took responsibility for the full 18 month timeline. It accepted various related failings and awarded the leaseholder a total of £320 in related compensation to put things right. The leaseholder accepted this award was proportionate given what went wrong. From the information seen, there was no evidence to indicate the landlord’s offer was either unfair, or overlooked key aspects of the complaint. In other words, we found no reason to override the agreement reached between the parties.
Given the above, the landlord’s offer of £320 in total compensation amounted to reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point. It was noted the leaseholder is seeking information about the completed works including a copy of the drain survey. The landlord is encouraged to promptly provide his requested information to avoid any further frustration or complaints.

The landlord’s complaint handling

With reference to the landlord’s relevant policy timescales, the timeline points to complaint handling delays of around five months in total. This was largely based on the periods between 5 April and 10 June 2022, and 13 August to 3 November 2022. Given the length of the delays, and the additional inconvenience he was caused, the landlord was right to award the leaseholder compensation to put things right. Its complaint correspondence suggests its relevant award amounted to £190 in total across his two complaints.
This award was proportionate to redress any distress or inconvenience arising from the above identified delays. However, the landlord could have improved its service by signposting any delays in its complaint/escalation acknowledgements. Further, it could have reasonably issued holding correspondence, containing brief updates, afterwards. Again, this may have prevented unnecessary chasers from the leaseholder.
The timeline points to other issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, in relation to the balcony defect, its complaint responses on 7 March, 10 June and 3 November 2022 resembled updates rather than formal responses. Since the Ombudsman has not seen the leaseholder’s initial complaints, the original framing of his concerns was unclear. However, it appears the landlord missed opportunities to identify and redress any failures. It was noted the leaseholder questioned its responses on a number of occasions.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), first published in July 2020, says complaint responses should include: the outcome of the complaint, the reasons for any decisions made and details of any redress. It is reasonable to conclude that including this information could have helped the landlord identify and resolve issues. At the very least, the landlord could have been more proactive in questioning the leaseholder. Its decision to eventually award compensation suggests it did not dispute his version of events.
It was also noted the leaseholder’s escalation request, on 8 March 2022, said the landlord failed to respond to an enquiry about measures the landlord was taking to improve the efficiency of the block’s heat network. It is understood this enquiry may relate to pipe lagging. From the information seen, it was unclear whether the issue was included in the leaseholder’s initial complaint. However, the landlord should have addressed the issue in accordance with the Code, which says “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint…”.
If this was a new issue, the landlord should have either included it in the existing complaint or raised a new formal complaint to address the matter. Whilst it is accepted this was a complex complaint involving multiple issues, the landlord should have addressed the leaseholder’s concerns either way. Given the trend in correspondence between the parties, it was assumed the leaseholder raised his concerns again elsewhere. However, this should not have been necessary. Given the above there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 34(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s preparation for compliance with upcoming safety legislation.
2. The landlord’s response to a heat network consultation.
In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the leaseholder’s assertion the landlord breached its legal obligations around handling service charge funds was also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s:
1. Section 20 notices
2. Handling of a balcony design fault

Reasons

There was no evidence to show either the landlord’s preparations, or its response to the heat network consultation adversely impacted the leaseholder in respect of his occupation of the property. As a result, these concerns were outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman was not best-placed to determine the leaseholder’s assertion around service charges, which likely needs considering by either the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) or a court.
Contrary to the Code, the landlord failed to address concerns around energy efficiency which the leaseholder raised in his escalation request. Whilst the leaseholder likely raised his concerns again elsewhere, this should not have been necessary.
The landlord’s apology was sufficient to put things right in respect of its January 2022 Section 20 notice. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to include cladding maintenance in its long-term major works projections. The landlord is obliged to serve official documents by post. It is for the landlord to decide if it wants to issue additional electronic copies.
The landlord offered a total of £320 in compensation in relation to its handling of the balcony defect. The parties agreed this was proportionate and there was no evidence to indicate the offer was either unfair, or overlooked key aspects of the complaint. We therefore found no reason to override the agreement reached between the parties.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the leaseholder for its failure to address the energy efficiency concerns referenced in his March 2022 escalation request. The landlord should check its records to ensure it previously responded elsewhere. If it hasn’t already done so, the landlord may need to raise a new formal complaint about the matter. It should provide evidence of both the apology and it actions in regards to the missing complaint issue to the Ombudsman within four weeks.
The landlord to pay the leaseholder £50 in compensation with four weeks to recognise any distress and inconvenience he was caused by the above identified error. The information seen suggests it has already paid the leaseholder its previous compensation award of £560 in total (£190, £200 and £170). However, any amount outstanding from this figure should also be paid.
The landlord to share the report’s key findings with its complaint handling staff within four weeks for learning and improvement purposes. Emphasis should be placed on the highlighted requirements of the Code.

Recommendations

The landlord to promptly provide the leaseholder’s requested information about the completed balcony hatch works. This is with a view to avoiding the leaseholder incurring any additional frustration that may lead to a further complaint.
The landlord to review its processes for signposting complaint handling delays. It should consider signposting the duration of the delay as soon as possible. It should also consider issuing brief updates during any queues. These measures could avoid unnecessary correspondence which is inconvenient for residents in the queue.
The landlord to consider setting up a dedicated enquiry mailbox to handle non-standard enquiries. If it adopts this approach, the landlord should ensure all enquires are acknowledged and a response timescale is issued. Enquiries could then be allocated accordingly to the relevant team.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within four weeks.