Notting Hill Genesis (202012006)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012006

Notting Hill Genesis

26 July 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

This complaint is about the level of redress the landlord offered in response to the resident’s various concerns about its services, management and complaint handling from December 2019.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a shared owner of the property, and the lease began on
13 November 2015. The property is a flat on the seventh floor of a block. The landlord has said the resident occupied the property between August 2017 and September 2020. In its correspondence to the resident, the landlord referred to the block as a “newer build”.
The lease agreement confirms the landlord is obliged to repair, redecorate or renew the building’s structure. This includes “the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building”, along with “all parts of the building which are not the responsibility of the leaseholder… or any other leaseholder”.
The landlord’s protection provisions, contained in section 5.5 of the lease agreement, show the landlord is not liable to the leaseholder for any failure in or interruption of these services (repair, redecorate, renew) which are not attributable to “its neglect or default”.
The lease agreement confirms the landlord has the leaseholder’s authorisation to disclose personal information to their mortgage holder, including details of any rent or service charge arrears. It also confirms “no bird fowl, dog, cat or other creature shall be kept in the premises or on any balcony, patio or roof terrace”.
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives leaseholders the right to ask their landlord to supply a summary of the relevant costs, which make up their service charges, for the last accounting period. The summary should be compiled by a qualified professional. A resident’s request must be submitted to the landlord in writing.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. At stage one, complaints are investigated by the landlord’s local representative. If a complaint concerns this representative, it will be handled by their manager. The landlord aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, the landlord aims to respond in 20 working days.
The landlord has a related compensation and goodwill gestures policy. The policy document, effective from 1 December 2020, sets out the landlord’s approach towards the loss of rooms or facilities. It shows, where the landlord has failed to fulfil its repairing obligations, it can compensate residents a set percentage of their daily rent as compensation for the loss of a living room, bedroom or bathroom. It can also apply the same approach to a loss of heating, or cold water and sanitary provisions.

Summary of events

On 27 December 2019 the resident raised a formal complaint about the block’s lifts. He said they had been unusable all day having broken down. Further, this was unacceptable in a ten-storey block containing vulnerable residents. Having called the landlord’s emergency repairs line, the resident reported hearing a message stating the relevant team would not return to the office until 2 January 2020.
On 2 January 2020 the resident emailed the landlord’s complaints team. He said the block’s fob entry system had also failed for several days from 27 December 2019. Further, during this time, residents accessed the block through an unsecured back door. He said the situation was a security risk and a large group of “youths” were expelled from the building. Further, he was unable to access the car park through his fob. He said the block’s internal issues were resolved on 1 January 2020, but the overall situation was unacceptable due to the number of vulnerable residents in the block.
The resident’s email detailed his preferred resolution to the complaint. Broadly, he said steps should be taken to improve the landlord’s availability for emergency repairs and its relevant repair timescale, along with its incident communication with residents. He also said compensation should be awarded given the circumstances.
Between 6 and 11 January 2020 the parties exchanged emails about the resident’s lift complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay which it attributed to the holiday period. It advised the resident’s complaint had been allocated to its local representative and provided a reference number. Ultimately, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated because the landlord did not reply. He also said the landlord’s local representative frequently failed to respond to his contact. An ongoing rent arrears issue was referenced as an example of the problem.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 10 January 2020 shows the resident had been waiting since October for the landlord to setup a direct debit. Further, he was “very angry” about the number of calls and emails required to resolve the problem. The correspondence said he had been willing to pay the outstanding balance from the outset. It also said the resident questioned the purpose of the local representative given the situation, and their failure to respond to enquiries on “numerous” occasions.
The local representative emailed the resident on 13 January 2020. The email confirms they had spoken to the resident that day. It said issues relating to the resident’s direct debit had been ongoing over several months. Further, the resident’s proposal to increase his rent payment would not clear the balance for 18 months. However, he could pay half of the outstanding balance, as a one-off payment, and spread the remaining amount over nine months to reach his preferred monthly payment figure.
The representative also said, in line with the landlord’s debt collection policy, the next step would be to approach the resident’s mortgage provider for the outstanding balance. However, this option was a last resort and hopefully an agreement could be reached. The representative said they would shortly visit the block and the resident’s concerns would be discussed with the on-site team. The resident would be notified of the outcome to these discussions in due course.
The resident replied the same day. He said the landlord’s previous correspondence was unprofessional given its mistake caused the arrears. Further, the landlord failed to set up a direct debit, failed to follow up a related complaint and failed to respond to a subsequent repayment suggestion. The resident said he escalated a further complaint, which was now overdue a response, concerning contact issues within the last few days.
He also said a similar direct debit issue occurred previously and the landlord’s local representative was involved. Further, his current situation did not fit the landlord’s arrears policy since the arrears resulted from its failure to take payment. The resident suggested the landlord could refund a portion of his rent or service charge to account for instances where it failed to meet its obligations. The recent lift failure was given as an example.
On 15 January 2020 the landlord gave the resident its reference numbers relating to the lift and arrears complaints. It said it would respond to both matters by
20 January 2020. On this this date the resident asked to escalate his arrears complaint on the basis the landlord did not respond. He said he had received notification of reduced arrears due to a service charge refund. Further, he also received generic correspondence, threatening legal action, which stated he failed to make contact about the arrears. He said this information was incorrect and could be considered harassment.
The landlord’s internal correspondence shows it followed up the complaints with the local representative on 21 January, 31 January and 11 February 2020. The landlord’s contact records from around this time show the resident made several separate requests to speak to the representative. During these calls further concerns were referenced about an address error, broken balconies and both the landlord’s level and management of service charges.
During a later review request, the resident said he raised several additional concerns with the landlord on 2 March 2020. The Ombudsman has not seen any information to confirm either how they were raised, or the specific details at this point. However, the information seen suggests they included issues around the block’s intercom and parking arrangements. It also suggests the landlord failed to respond until much later in the timeline.
On 12 August 2020 the resident’s local MP contacted the landlord with details of the resident’s complaint. The MP asked the landlord to respond to all the resident’s concerns as a matter of urgency.
On 8 September 2020 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident’s MP. It addressed service charges, the fob system, balconies and the block’s cladding. The response was issued around eight months after the resident raised his repair complaint. The main points were:
1. Service charges had risen in recent years and previous estimates had contained errors. However, the landlord’s charging information was transparent, and it hoped to see various improvements due to recent changes to its management of the block.
2. An onsite engineer had been appointed to respond to urgent repairs. While this was partially responsible for increased charges, the landlord hoped the change would lead to cost reductions in other areas. Residents would be kept updated with the landlord’s performance.
3. The repair issues were discussed with the resident in detail during a meeting in February 2020. However, the landlord was sorry it failed to provide a formal response and it accepted this was a service failure. It would offer the resident £200 compensation to acknowledge what went wrong. It understood the repairs were completed by an external contractor within 48 hours. Further, it had managed the situation directly with any vulnerable residents.
4. During the meeting, the resident was advised he was in breach of his lease by owning a pet. While it had provided time to resolve the situation, the landlord would shortly issue letters to all residents confirming the block was a pet free site. Its correspondence would confirm further action could be taken following breaches of contract.
5. Scaffolding erected on the block was an ongoing issue that was subject to legal action. The landlord was working on the situation and residents would be kept updated.
6. Cladding certification was a difficult and lengthy process. The resident’s requests for an EWS1 form (intended to reassure lenders) had been logged. The landlord had a dedicated team working on related enquiries. A copy of the most recent update document was attached to the landlord’s response.
Both parties agree the resident asked to escalate his complaint in October 2020. The landlord later said its local representative failed to process his request at this time. The Ombudsman has not seen the original escalation email, but the timeline was confirmed by a further email from the MP to the landlord on 20 January 2021. This email confirms the resident had not received a reply to his escalation request. It also contained the resident’s reasons for disagreeing with the landlord’s stage one response. The main points were:
1. The landlord’s level of service charges was disproportionate given the age of the building, the facilities available to residents and the quality of the landlord’s maintenance. Because charges in comparable nearby developments were much lower, the resident wanted “a true breakdown” of the landlord’s costs along with justifications where they were higher than expected.
2. In relation to the fob complaint, the resident disagreed with several aspects of the landlord’s version of events. This was broadly on the basis he did not feel the landlord did all it could to assist its residents. Nevertheless, he was satisfied the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation was sufficient to close the matter.
3. The resident wanted an update around the glass balconies and scaffolding. He said the landlord should fix the issue from its own funds while it was waiting for the legal liability to be settled. Further, his use of the property had been reduced for around two years, but the landlord had not reduced the rent accordingly. He also said residents were unclear as to whether it was safe to access the balconies.
4. The resident did not receive the cladding update that the landlord previously said was attached, so he asked for the information to be resent. He also said he understood this was a national issue, but the updates were a “major help”.
5. During the February 2020 meeting, the resident asked for clarification of the landlord’s pet policy. He subsequently felt the landlord’s stance around visitors with pets was both “extreme” and inconsistent with the Consumer Rights Act (2015).
6. The resident detailed 15 issues which remained outstanding following the meeting. He said he subsequently resolved four issues himself after the landlord failed to respond. However, the landlord’s lack of responsiveness should now be considered a separate complaint point. Further, his concerns were largely unanswered despite being raised through a variety of channels, including the landlord’s contact centre, through the local representative’s manager and through the Resolver service.
7. The resident said the landlord’s lack of a response prevented him from seeking a resolution through the Ombudsman. He therefore wanted an explanation for the situation, along with details of the landlord’s plan to improve its performance. He said the landlord should respond to the concerns it had not yet acknowledged. Further, it should escalate the complaint points it had responded to.
On 28 January 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s local representative. He asked when he could expect to receive a stage two response given the initial complaint was over ten months old. From the information seen, the landlord did not reply. The resident subsequently contacted the Ombudsman for assistance. On 8 February 2021, this Service instructed to the landlord issue a final response within 20 working days.
On 17 February 2021 the landlord’s representative asked the resident for clarification of the outstanding issues. They said some of his concerns were historic and many no longer affected him given he had since sold the property.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 9 April 2021. We said, further to our previous correspondence, the resident had recently advised a complaint response was still outstanding. As a result, the landlord should respond in five working days.
Following some prior correspondence between the parties, the landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage two on 19 April 2021. It said its local representative had left the organisation. Further, it was in the process of gathering information from their previous emails. It accepted there was an extended delay and that the resident’s additional issues were overlooked. It also asked the resident to clarify his outstanding concerns.
The resident replied the next day. The email included his response to the representative’s request for clarification. The main points were:
1. A response was still outstanding to fourteen of the original complaint issues. The remaining matter, while pending a solution, was also yet to close. While some issues were now resolved, the landlord’s protracted complaint handling warranted investigation.
2. In relation to service charges, an annual boiler service cost leaseholders £240 per year. If sourced locally, the same service would cost around one third of this amount. This resident wanted to know how this situation came about and said the impact on residents was ongoing.
3. As far as the resident was concerned, none of the issues had been resolved. His preferred outcome was for each issue to be addressed in turn and for appropriate remedial action to be taken.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident it would issue a final response by 7 May 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 7 May 2021. The response was issued by a member of the landlord’s senior leadership team. The landlord said it was also reviewed by both a further manager and a resident. The main points were:
1. In line with the lease agreement, pets were not permitted and there was no provision for consent to be provided. The block itself was also designated “pet-free”. As a result, the landlord felt its previous stance was clear.
2. The landlord was following government guidance following the Grenfell tragedy. It was updating leaseholders when possible and had set up a dedicated enquiry team. It was aware leaseholders were having difficulty selling affected properties, and it was prioritising surveys where possible. The landlord was sorry the resident did not receive the previous update.
3. Scaffolding was erected due to safety concerns around glass balconies and was in place to eliminate the risk of falling debris. The matter was subject to a legal liability dispute and the remedial costs were expected to be substantial. The landlord sought to avoid passing on costs to residents unnecessarily. In line with its compensation policy, the balconies were excluded from loss of use payments. However, residents should have been updated regularly about the situation.
4. The estate’s management and on-site engineer should ensure repairs were identified and handled efficiently. However, the landlord was aware the engineer never received any reports from the representative. The intercom was considered a routine repair and was resolved within 48 hours in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
5. The landlord was committed to improving its overall repairs service. It was also aware that costs associated with its contractors were often higher than independent providers. However, it was required to comply with various regulations and meet strict criteria around issues such as health and safety, or data protection. The landlord had introduced a new system to enable it to access a larger pool of suppliers, which it hoped would result in cost savings of around 12%.
6. The landlord’s service charges were based on a budget set in advance of the financial year. It was generally preferrable to increase monthly instalments to avoid residents incurring costs for a large deficit at the year’s end. The 2020/21 budget was increased due to a boiler servicing contract and the on-site engineer. The landlord was unable to comment on other provider’s service charges without the relevant details.
7. The landlord was sorry it failed to respond to several of the resident’s general queries. While now not relevant, specific updates should have been provided while the resident was still a leaseholder, in line with the landlord’s applicable timescales. Several service failures had been identified, notably a seven-month delay (between October 2020 and May 2021) following the resident’s escalation request.
8. The resident’s complaint raised wider concerns, despite the representative’s departure, given the landlord’s operating model. The system was designed to ensure accountability but could raise issues where staff conduct did not meet the landlord’s requirements. The landlord was encouraging residents to raise queries online to increase oversight. New performance measures had also been introduced, along with new leaders tasked with adding value.
9. Overall, there were service failures on the landlord’s part. The overriding themes were a general lack of communication and a failure to meet response times. These failures led to substantial complaint handling delays. As a result, the landlord awarded £550 in total compensation comprising: £200 for its handling of the lift fault, £250 for the distress and inconvenience of chasing the landlord for responses and a £100 discretionary payment to recognise an extensive delay in escalating the complaint.
The resident updated the Ombudsman on 11 May 2021. He said he agreed with the landlord’s summary, but its failures were not due solely to the actions of one individual. The main points were:
1. The landlord’s pet policy was heavy handed, and clarification was required. This was on the basis the resident met other occupants with pets when he first moved in. Further, the landlord was unreasonable to say the situation needed resolving within one month and that other residents had been successfully taken to court.
2. The landlord’s failure to hold adequate records for its buildings was a service failure which prolonged its timescale for assessing the cladding. Likewise, the relevant assessment had not been scheduled “after years” of waiting. Overall, while the property had been sold, the resident felt the situation caused unnecessary stress to residents in similar situations.
3. The landlord had a responsibility to fix the balconies as soon as possible and could use its sinking fund. The situation had restricted the resident from using a significant portion of his property, which would have proved a useful escape during the pandemic. The resident’s surveyor had said the situation impacted his sale of the property. Overall, the resident felt the landlord should refund a proportionate percentage of his rent given the loss of use.
4. The resident acknowledged the various steps the landlord had taken to improve its repairs service. However, he felt the landlord had a history of failing to comply with its policies. As a result, he wanted to know what actions had been taken to investigate previous repair issues concerning the block’s intercom defaulting to a particular flat, a smell of sewage in the bathroom and the temperature of the block’s hallways.
5. The resident’s service charge concerns related to “vastly inaccurate bills”, excessive and inexplicable costs, and the resident’s final service charge. While inaccuracies had been fixed, residents had experienced stress associated with overpayments. Further, the process for reclaiming funds was lengthy. The resident said he needed further detail in relation to individual service charge items to conclude the level of charges was not due to the landlord’s mismanagement. Additionally, his final service charge payments were based on estimates and no actuals had been received. The resident expected a refund based on previous years.
6. While the landlord’s steps to increase its oversight were acknowledged, the resident said his experience showed other members of its staff were aware of problems with the representative but did nothing to address the situation. Further, communication issues arose in respect of each complaint point so the problem appeared systemic. The resident felt the landlord’s level of redress should reflect the extent of these failures and the time he had spent trying to resolve issues.
7. The resident had several concerns with the landlord’s management of parking at the site including the introduction of double yellow lines, a frequently broken entry gate, the appointment of a parking management agent and contractors blocking access. The resident said he would accept the payment of two parking fines, which he said were incurred while parking in his own designated space, to close the matter.
8. Overall, the resident felt the landlord had not recognised the breadth of its failures, resolved any of his concerns or awarded adequate redress.
On 24 August 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to monthly service charges. It said from 1 September 2020 the resident’s total monthly charge was £376.88.
On 24 September 2021, following contact from the Ombudsman about outstanding complaint issues, the landlord issued an “addendum” to its stage two response. The main points were:
1. In relation to the rent arrears, the landlord acknowledged a delay in setting up the resident’s direct debit, over several months, despite his multiple attempts to resolve the issue. It said its related correspondence was generated by its automated arrears system. However, it understood it was frustrating to receive correspondence attributed to the local representative while he was unable to contact them.
2. The landlord was aware the resident requested a payment plan shortly after he advised he was seeking to pay his arrears in full. It said he should have known no rent payments were being made while the situation was ongoing. Though it did not usually agree to payment plans lasting over four months, the landlord could see it tried to offer a flexible solution to the resident’s arrears. However, its response was inadequate because it should have sought to understand the resident’s personal circumstances. If appropriate, it should also have signposted the resident to relevant external support agencies.
3. In relation to the no pets policy, potential buyers were expected to consult their solicitors if they were unsure of any specific lease terms. The resident should have checked the clause prior to the sale, or before moving a pet into the property. The landlord was confident its stance was consistently clear, and no service failure occurred.
4. In relation to the block’s doors and gates, vandalism and improper use had caused issues. The landlord had limited control over such incidents, but it was committed to ensuring repairs were completed in line with its applicable timescales.
5. The landlord’s boiler contract included cover for any faults throughout the year, along with any required callouts. Engineers eligible for the contract, given its scale, were required to meet specific financial constraints. Quotes from smaller firms may therefore not be comparable. Further, it was necessary to manage the servicing centrally to ensure required standards were met.
6. Since the introduction of the on-site engineer, the landlord’s repairs performance had improved. It would seek advice from its contractors on how to improve its equipment and reduce the likelihood of callouts where appropriate.
7. Residents were issued a summary of expenditure following the end of the landlord’s annual accounting period. Further, in line with the relevant legislation, they could request copies of invoices for up to six months following the summary. Deficits were addressed through application of a charge to the service charge account, surpluses were refunded accordingly to residents. The landlord was aware of historic issues with budgeting and reconciliation but said they were subsequently resolved.
8. The resident’s service charges had increased by around £40 per month, which was largely due to the addition of the on-site engineer. The changes were explained in a letter to residents and in subsequent residents’ meetings. The landlord said it had previously absorbed costs arising from accounting errors rather than passing them on to residents.
9. There were not enough parking facilities at the site for each flat to have a designated space. The landlord’s parking information would have been available to the resident before he bought the property. Parking control was introduced to address the problem of unauthorised parking in bays and the landlord understood the situation had since improved. Residents parked in their correct bay with the relevant permit on display should not have been issued a ticket.
10. The landlord was sorry it did not update the resident after his initial request for an EWS1 certificate for the block. It understood the latest cladding briefing was only provided several weeks later with its stage one response. It was pleased the resident’s sale had not been delayed or impacted by the lack of a certificate. The landlord said it was at an early stage of its cladding investigations at the point of the resident’s complaint. However, an increased risk was not identified in relation to the block, so only periodic updates to residents were deemed necessary.
11. The lack of response from the local representative would not have affected the landlord’s progress in relation to the cladding issue. However, because it failed to respond within its set timescale the landlord would award additional compensation for service failure.
12. In relation to repairs, the scaffolding was erected for safety reasons and was the subject of an ongoing legal dispute between the landlord and the balconies’ installers. The landlord was unable to give a timescale for the situation to be resolved.
13. Further, its onsite team was unable to resolve the intercom fault, which arose over Christmas 2019. A contractor therefore attended and completed the repair within 48 hours in line with the landlord’s relevant timescale. Since he had previously said £200 was adequate compensation to close the matter, the landlord said it was unsure of the resident’s outstanding concerns.
14. The landlord had an out of hours service that was able to take calls over the Christmas period, so the resident should have been able to report the initial lift failure. The landlord believed he had dialled an alternative contact number obtained from outdated signage in the block. The landlord accepted it should have updated this signage. Since this failure was not previously acknowledged, the landlord would award additional compensation to address what went wrong.
15. The temperature in the block’s corridors was not due to a building defect. Rather, the block was energy efficient by design and landlord was unaware of any faults with the ventilation system. Regarding the resident’s report of a foul smell from a plug hole in the property, leaseholders were responsible for maintaining any internal sanitary equipment. Further, the landlord did not receive similar reports from other residents to indicate a communal issue. However, it would award additional compensation to acknowledge its local representative failed to respond to the resident’s report.
16. The landlord hoped its response demonstrated it had thoroughly considered the resident’s concerns. In its summary paragraph, it increased the overall level of compensation awarded to £675. This new offer was broken down as outlined in the paragraph below.
17. The offer comprised £200 for failing to respond to the resident’s lift complaint, as agreed at stage one, £375 for the distress and inconvenience the resident was caused while chasing outstanding responses (£75 for the delay in setting up the direct debit, £75 for the inadequate response to the resident’s request for a payment plan, £75 for a failure to provide cladding information within the relevant response timescale, £75 for the incorrect out of hours information and £75 for the lack of response to the plug hole issue). A further £100 was included based on the extensive delay in escalating the resident’s complaint.
The Ombudsman has seen an account history report which shows a direct debit reversal around 9 October 2021 left a due balance of £376.88 on the resident’s account. From the information seen, it is unclear whether this amount is still outstanding to the landlord.
During a phone call on 8 July 2022, the resident told the Ombudsman he had not been paid the landlord’s compensation. He also said he felt the amount should now be increased given the time that had passed. He said his overall experience of the landlord was negative, particularly given the issues around cladding and balconies. However, he was pleased he sold the property and said he was seeking closure in respect of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that the resident encountered multiple issues with the landlord’s services during the timeline. Further, that the overall situation was frustrating for him. While some of his concerns relate to the welfare of other residents, the Ombudsman was unable to assess the landlord’s handling of issues relating to other parties. This is because the resident brought his complaint to the Ombudsman as an individual rather than a group case.
It is reasonable to conclude the resident’s sale of the property altered the relative importance of a number of his complaint points. For example, the current situation around cladding or conditions in the block is now less important to the resident than any redress he may be owed due to historic failures by the landlord. In other words, this assessment focussed on issues where the resident potentially remained out of pocket. As a result, particular attention was paid to his concerns around lost use of the property’s balcony.
The information seen suggests the balcony issue arose after the resident moved into the property. This is because his escalation comments, from October 2020, show the situation had been ongoing for around two years at this point. The landlord said the resident took over the lease in August 2017. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around loss of use were understandable, particularly in the context of the pandemic that occurred during the timeline. This assessment therefore considered the landlord’s compensation policy carefully in conjunction with the lease agreement.
It was noted both documents stress the importance of failure on the part of the landlord. For example, the lease agreement suggests the landlord is not liable to the resident for repair issues which cannot be attributed to “neglect or default” on its part. The compensation policy confirms compensation for loss of use can be awarded, in certain circumstances, where the landlord failed to fulfil its repairing obligations. Though the resident’s circumstances were not included, the lease agreement can reasonably be considered more important given it was a legal agreement between the parties.
In this case, no information was seen to show the balcony was unusable due to a failure on the landlord’s part. This was a key factor because Ombudsman assessments are necessarily evidence led. The Ombudsman cannot determine matters such as liability or negligence, which is typically a role of the courts. Instead, we typically rely on the professional opinion of relevant qualified experts when assessing complaints. Ultimately, no evidence (from a surveyor or similar) was seen to show the situation resulted from a failure by the landlord. From the information seen, the dispute over liability remains ongoing.
As a result, it cannot fairly be said the landlord was obliged to consider awarding the resident loss of use compensation in relation to the balcony. Generally, the Ombudsman needs to be able to point to a failure on the part of a landlord to order compensation in cases of this type. The resident could contact Citizens Advice for information if he is considering pursing legal action. Similarly, no information was seen to show the resident was incorrectly issued parking tickets while he was living at the property. We therefore cannot order the landlord to reimburse the residents for any costs he incurred as a result.
In relation to the resident’s service charge concerns, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable. This is because the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is better placed to consider complaints of this type. The Ombudsman can consider a landlord’s administration of service charges, including its response to requests for information about them.
The timeline shows the resident wanted the landlord to provide an accurate reflection of its costs when he asked for the complaint to be escalated in October 2020. The landlord subsequently provided additional information about its increased charges in both its stage two response and subsequent addendum. From the resident’s escalation comments, it cannot fairly be said that the landlord failed to respond to a clearly identifiable section 21 request.
This is because the wording the resident used could reasonably interpreted as a general comment rather than a specific request. Ideally, the landlord could have clarified whether the resident was seeking specific information in line with his rights under the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). However, no information was seen to show it was obliged to do so. On that basis, no information was seen to show there were any unaddressed failures in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge concerns.
Given the above, the evidence shows the landlord’s final offer of redress did not unfairly overlook any further issues in need of redress.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
No information was seen to show the resident disputed any specific aspects of either the landlord’s stage two response or its addendum. This suggests the core facts of the case were not in dispute following the landlord’s addendum. The timeline confirms it took around 21 months for the resident to receive a full response to his complaint. This was an inappropriate timeframe, so the landlord was correct to award redress to account for the resident’s poor experience.
In combination, the landlord’s complaint responses confirm it awarded the resident £300 in respect of its complaint handling. Our internal remedies guidance shows this figure is consistent with the Ombudsman’s expectations for instances where “a complainant repeatedly (had) to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement”. This is a reasonable benchmark given the circumstances.
This is because the timeline confirms the resident had to approach both his MP and the Ombudsman on several occasions to progress his complaint. This should not have been necessary, and it is reasonable to conclude the situation was frustrating. In relation to the landlord’s other awards, its revised offer of £75 compensation for each specific failure was proportionate given the impact to the resident of each individual incident.
For example, in relation to the arrears, there was no information to show the resident experienced a significant detrimental impact due to the landlord’s failure to establish the exact details of his financial circumstances. In summary, the evidence shows the landlord’s final offer of £675 in total compensation was sufficient to put things right for the resident. While some inconsistency was noted in the landlord’s approach to compensation for distress and inconvenience, between its stage two response and addendum, its final calculation was fair given what went wrong.
In addition to other improvement areas, the resident’s overall experience highlighted a significant potential flaw in the landlord’s operating model. This assessment therefore considered whether the landlord took sufficient steps to learn from his experience in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. It was noted, from the wording of its stage two response, the landlord was already aware that focussing resident enquiries through a single point of contact could cause problems in the event its relevant local representative was underperforming.
The landlord said it was encouraging residents to submit online queries to help it track and monitor its performance. It also said it had added a new role to its leadership structure to support its management staff at a regional level. These were reasonable steps given the circumstances and the landlord is encouraged to monitor its performance closely. It was noted the landlord’s stage two responses were issued by an individual performing the landlord’s new leadership role. This information was used to evidence the landlord’s efforts to improve its performance by learning from outcomes.
Given the above, the evidence shows the landlord offered the resident reasonable redress given what went wrong.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress in response to the resident’s various concerns about its services, management and complaint handling from December 2019.

Reasons

The evidence seen shows the landlord’s final compensation award did not unfairly overlook any further issues in need of redress. Further, that the landlord’s revised offer was sufficient to redress the resident for any distress and inconvenience he was caused by its failures. The revised offer was reasonable and in line with Ombudsman’s expectations. There is evidence the landlord sought to improve its performance by learning from outcomes.

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident its final offer of £675 compensation as detailed in its stage two addendum.
The landlord to write to the resident with an update on its legal action against the balcony installer. The update could include details of the landlord’s expectations around the likely final outcome, along with the implications for current and former residents.
The landlord to review its processes around service charge information requests. This is with a view to ensuring any unclear requests are clarified to prevent any requests made in line with the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) from being missed.
The landlord to confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendations within four weeks.