We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Nottingham City Council (202227250)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227250

Nottingham City Homes Limited

27 September 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Major works to the communal parts of the building.
    2. Its potential purchase of the resident’s property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat. The landlord is the freeholder of the building.
  2. The landlord completed a consultation period with residents between 22 August 2020 and 24 September 2020 regarding potential regeneration works to the building.
  3. The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 21 January 2021, following the consultation period, to advise it had received no objections from residents about the proposed extensive improvements to the building.  The landlord provided two quotes to residents, advising the cost to each property would be £27,000, however this would be capped at a £10,000 service charge to the resident with the landlord covering the remaining cost. The landlord advised residents that they should raise any concerns they had about these works in writing before 19 February 2022. The landlord emailed the resident on 28 January 2021 to confirm its notice of intent regarding these works. The renovation works included:
    1. Overhaul the chimney stack.
    2. Remove and replace existing roof slates, roof battens and existing lead flashing.
    3. Replace roof and dormer timbers as necessary.
    4. Replace UPVC guttering, fittings, and downpipes.
    5. Window and external door replacements throughout the building.
    6. Rewiring of power and lighting circuits throughout the communal areas.
    7. New fire detection alarm system and emergency lighting throughout the building.
  4. The resident had agreed to sell her property to the landlord in June 2021. The landlord and resident’s solicitors continued to engage regarding this matter with an exchange of contracts initially agreed for 10 December 2021, which was delayed, and then an agreed exchange for 29 April 2021. The resident’s solicitor repeatedly contacted the landlord to progress this matter on 29 April 2022 and advised that the landlord had failed to respond to communication and had behaved unprofessionally. The landlord advised the resident’s solicitor that it had been waiting for confirmation that money was in the process of being transferred for the purchase.
  5. The resident’s solicitor further contacted the landlord on 22 May 2022 that due to works ongoing in the building, the resident had been unable to sell or rent the flat, and the landlord had failed to reasonably purchase the property and continually ignored communication.
  6. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 May 2022 advising it was looking in to how it could resolve this issue and it will provide the resident with further update when it could. The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 July 2022 to advise that it had been scheduled to complete on the resident’s property on 27 April 2022. It advised that on 26 April 2022 the local authority had advised the landlord that its services would be taken back in house and that the landlord would be unable to proceed with the purchase as planned. It advised it had attempted to find a resolution for this, but it had been unable to and appreciated the time that this matter had taken and advised some property transactions do not proceed as envisaged. The landlord advised it would be highly unlikely that it would complete the purchase and advised the resident to consider other options regarding the property. The landlord apologised for the distress caused to the resident. It further advised that the £10,000 contribution to proposed works to the building was set out in the resident’s lease and due to this, this charge would stand. It advised that works are still being carried out and would have a positive impact on the desirability of the resident’s flat.
  7. The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 August 2022 to raise a formal complaint. The resident advised since the initial notice in January 2022, she heard nothing further from the landlord regarding the major works or the purchase of her property until the resident contacted her MP and the landlord wrote to her on 21 July 2021 to confirm it would not be buying her property. The resident advised that.
    1. She had left the property empty so that the landlord could purchase it as vacant possession.
    2. Repair works began on the building in April 2021 which had made the building uninhabitable.
    3. The landlord’s inefficiency delayed the purchase which it eventually pulled out of on 29 April 2022.
  8. The resident advised the improvements were not completed within a timely manner.  She stated that these issues had cost her a lot of money in solicitors fees, lost rent, and a bill for energy usage by the landlord’s operatives after she had provided the landlord a key to allow it to carry out any necessary works to the flat as part of the widescale improvements.  The resident advised that the decision to incorporate the landlord back into the local authority was made at a meeting on 28 April 2022, and asked why the sale could not have just progressed.
  9. The resident followed this up with an impact statement on 17 August 2022 in which she advised that this entire issue had caused trauma to her due to the landlord’s actions.
  10. The landlord emailed the resident on 18 August 2022 regarding repair works. It advised that the windows installed that day did require some follow up work which it would arrange. It confirmed that the fire escape would not be reinstated as there was no legal requirement for one. It further advised that while the bedroom window was currently blocked by scaffolding, there would still be fire escape through the front window and communal stairwell. It further confirmed that new fire alarms and lighting was being installed to bring the properties in line with current regulations, and that the issue of damp around the bay window would be addressed once the bay window had been replaced.
  11. The landlord logged the resident’s complaint on 8 September 2022 and provided its stage 1 response on 13 September 2022. The landlord reiterated what it had told the resident in its letter of 21 July 2022 advising as soon as it became aware of a potential issue with its purchase of her property it contacted the resident. It advised the resident had caused some delay in November 2021 by asking for the process to be delayed by 2-3 months. It explained that the delays in the works to the building had been partly due to the lack of the availability of contractors and it had asked contractors to prioritise the resident’s building. It said that while the resident chose not to rent the flat, at times her daughter did stay at the property, but it was the resident’s choice not to the rent the flat during the period of sale. It further stated it could have adjusted regarding works that were ongoing that would have allowed the resident to rent the flat. The landlord stated that it noted the resident had incurred costs as a result of the proposed sale of the property, but she would retain liability for this until contracts were signed.  The landlord apologised for this and the delays in the works being completed and confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been partially upheld.
  12. The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2022 to request her complaint was escalated. The resident noted that the landlord had called her at 4pm on the day the exchange was due to take place to advise the sale was not going through. She further stated:
    1. She did not request the sale was delayed. She had asked that she stored some furniture in the property while she was purchasing another property, but the sale was due to complete on 10 December 2022.
    2. She had been left in a far worse position following this and experienced considerable expense due to the landlord.
    3. She had attempted to contact senior management at the landlord but had failed to receive any response other than part of her complaint was upheld.
    4. The landlord should honour its commitment to buying her property.
  13. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 25 November 2022 and provided its stage 2 response on 8 December 2022. The landlord reiterated that it had responded to aspects of the resident’s complaint in its previous response, advising that there had been delays in the works, which had been due to Covid-19. It advised that due to the local authority taking control of the landlord again, there were very specific instructions regarding what it could and could not do and this ultimately affected the landlord’s ability to purchase the property and it had not been aware of this until it had contacted the resident on 29 April 2022. It reiterated it would not overturn its decision not to buy the resident’s property. It further requested information form the resident regarding its operatives using electricity/heating in the resident’s property and it would look into this matter further. Following the resident sharing information regarding bills demonstrating the landlord’s operatives was using power in her property, it agreed to reimburse the resident the total amount of £413.95 as a gesture of goodwill.
  14. The landlord further wrote to the resident on 27 March 2023 to confirm that as a decision had been made for the landlord would transition back to the management of the local authority, this had delayed the programme of works as the landlord had to review and revise its works. The landlord confirmed that completion of works was set for July 2023. The landlord confirmed this again in a phone call to the resident on 17 May 2023. The landlord again wrote to the resident on 18 October 2023 to confirm that improvement works within the building had been completed.
  15. The resident has reported that the situation affecting her property has caused stress due to the financial impact and the delays in the landlord’s response to her purchase as well as the repairs. The resident is seeking the landlord reimburse her the cost of the period of lost rent when she considers the property was uninhabitable due to the landlord’s improvement works on the building. The resident is also seeking the landlord compensate her for the distress and anxiety caused by errors in its handling of this matter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of her complaint the resident raised concerns about the landlord not proceeding with its purchase of her property, the delays in the process and the landlord ultimately withdrawing from the purchase.
  2. Paragraph 42(g) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, and more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure.
  3. This Service cannot order the landlord to proceed with a purchase of a property as there are a number of reasons why a purchase cannot be completed, and the landlord would not be obliged to proceed with a purchase of a property. This Service however can consider how the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding this matter, and the impact this may have had on the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman was sorry to learn of the mental impact this matter has had on the resident. This service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health; however, it is beyond the Ombudsman’s remit to consider whether this was directly affected by the landlord’s action or inaction. Often when there is a dispute over whether a health issue had been caused or made worse by negligence, the courts rely on expert evidence in the form of a medico-legal report. Without that evidence, this Service is not able to draw any conclusion on whether the resident’s health has been affected by the way in which the landlord had handled the proposed purchase of the resident’s property and the planned improvements to the building. It is however the role of this Service to assess how the landlord responded to the reports made by the resident regarding how this was affecting her health and wellbeing and whether its response was reasonable and proportionate in all circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman can also review whether the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, the law and industry best practice.

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s major works policy lists a cap of £10,000 for individual leaseholders to pay towards the cost of major works within a 5-year period. Leaseholder recharges are calculated as the total cost of works divided by the number of flats in a block.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states it will consider discretionary compensation where the landlord had failed to meet its own service targets, including keeping a customer informed throughout a process.

The landlord’s handling of major works to the communal parts of the building

  1. The landlord was correct in arranging to carry out a consultation with all residents of the block before completing extensive works. While this consultation was in line with the terms of the lease, the resident had advised this Service that the landlord had failed to write to her at her home address during the consultation process. The resident had confirmed that the landlord had emailed her on 28 January 2021 regarding the consultation, but this Service would expect the landlord to be aware that the resident did not live at the leasehold property and ensure it sent correspondence to her at her home address instead. This was again noted when the resident’s daughter visited the property and found a note posted through the door dated 7 April 2021 advising that works were due to start immediately. The resident confirmed again that this information had not been sent to her correspondence address. This was unreasonable from the landlord as it may have affected the resident’s ability to raise any questions or concerns regarding the consultation process and the works planned. It would also indicate there was a failure in the landlord’s record keeping in relation to the resident’s correct correspondence address. This may have caused confusion and frustration from the resident as she was not always provided with important information about the works as she should have been.
  2. While it was established that there were extensive works required to the building, the landlord’s correspondence to the resident demonstrates that these works were not finalised until October 2023. This was 2 years and 8 months after the works were due to begin. The landlord had identified that some delays had been caused by issues following the Covid-19 pandemic. While the Ombudsman accepts that there may have been some delays as a result of this, we would still expect a landlord to complete works within a reasonable timeframe and ensure it was keeping the resident regularly updated in event of any delays in works. Due to the nature of the works, and the size of the building, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to complete the improvements to the building within 12 months. The length of time these improvements took to complete was unreasonable and the landlord has not provided evidence to show the bulk of the delay was unavoidable. These delays would have caused significant inconvenience and worry for the resident.
  3. Evidence provided dated 9 November 2022 from the valuation office confirmed the property was removed from the Council Tax List with effect from 7 April 2021. It confirmed that once all the renovation works had been completed, the scaffolding removed and the property was habitable again, the resident could contact it to band the property.
  4. The Ombudsman contacted the Valuation Office to obtain clarity with respect to the removal of the tax banding. Whilst it was unable to discuss the specific case with me based for data protection purposes, it was able to confirm that there is a strict deletion criteria that it must follow. A listing officer would review all the evidence provided and deem this sufficient for the property to be removed. If the resident submitted evidence and the request was approved, the valuation office would have concluded that the property was inhabitable due to the ongoing works.
  5. As per the resident’s communication to the landlord on 18 June 2022, she confirmed that she was unable to rent the house due to the planned sale to the landlord that fell through. Ultimately, whether she wanted to sell the house, rent it or have personal enjoyment of her property, she was unable to do so based on the works taking place to the communal area. Whilst it is noted that her daughter did attempt to stay at the property, it was explained that she left due to the noise and the works.
  6. For at least 1 year 8 months the resident had no use of the property. As explained above, the landlord failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the length of time that the works took place. There is no evidence provided by the landlord to dispute the stance of the Valuation Office, of which it had knowledge of.
  7. Based on the impact to the resident, I have found severe maladministration for the landlord’s handling of the delays in the works to the communal areas. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, there was a significant failure in the landlord’s service which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident.
  8. I have considered the level of compensation offered within the original provisional response. The resident confirmed that she had paid the full balance of £140,000 when she originally purchased the property and therefore had no monthly payments. Whilst this may have been the case, she was unable make any use of the property, as per the Valuation Office’s position, whilst the works were taking place. The resident has recently communicated that as the landlord advised the approximate rental income at the time would have been between £700 and £750, she would like this amount compensated to her per month for the time she was unable to use the property. Whilst the Ombudsman is unable to consider compensation for loss of rental income, especially where there was no current tenant in situ, we can consider compensation with respect to the landlord’s obligation to provide quiet enjoyment of the home without interruption as per the Leaseholder’s Agreement. As such, as aforementioned, I have considered compensation based on loss of opportunity to rent (rather than loss of rent itself given there is no certainty the property would have been tenanted) time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to complete the repairs.
  9. Whilst the Valuation Office removed the tax banding in November 2022, due to the resident contacting it at that time, there is no evidence of a change in the state of the property from April 2022. As such it is reasonable, given the extensive delays the works to the communal area were subject to, to award £375 per month for 1 year 5 months, which is up until the works were completed in July 2023. This compensation is broken down as £125 per month for loss of opportunity, and £250 per month for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble in the delay in the landlord completing the repairs, totaling £6,375.
  10. I have also considered that the landlord failed to communicate that the repairs were completed in July 2023 until its email to the resident in October 2023 and order an additional £300 for this three-month delay in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  11. The resident had provided the landlord with a key to access her property to ensure it was able to proceed with necessary works. From evidence provided, it is clear that the landlord’s operatives had used the resident’s property which had led to an increase in the resident’s utility bills. As part of its stage 2 response, the landlord had requested further information from the resident to clarify the increase in utility bills during this period. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 6 April 2023 that it would fully reimburse the resident £413.95 for the heating/electricity used by its operatives in the resident’s property. While this offer was made after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints process, the landlord was reasonable in requesting supporting information from the resident before reimbursing her the costs to ensure it was paying the correct amount.  While it had been unreasonable for the landlord’s operative to have used the resident’s heating/electricity supply without permission, the landlord acted reasonably by reimbursing the resident these additional costs and apologising. Therefore, the landlord does not need to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s communication regarding the purchase of the resident’s property

  1. As explained above, the Ombudsman will not comment on the landlord’s reasons for not proceeding with the purchase of the resident’s property or any costs associated with the sale. Our investigation is focused on the landlord’s communication with the resident about the purchase.
  2. The resident had agreed to sell the property to the landlord in June 2021, with the sale eventually falling through on 29 April 2022. While the landlord was under no obligation to proceed with a purchase of the resident’s property, it is clear the landlord was responsible for delays in this process with the resident evidencing that the landlord had not reasonably responded to correspondence from herself and her solicitors. It also advised the resident’s solicitor on 29 April 2022 that funds were in the process of being transferred, while it had been agreed internally the previous day that the landlord was not able to proceed with the purchase as its services were being brought back in house by the local authority. This was unreasonable from the landlord. It had failed to maintain reasonable communication with the resident and her solicitor regarding this matter and had failed to reasonably manage the resident’s expectation regarding the sale proceeding when it was aware it would not proceed. This caused further distress and anxiety for the resident.
  3. A further £400 has been ordered for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord failure in communication with regards to the sale of the property and is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration cases where a failure has adversely affected the resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of major works to the resident’s building.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its communication regarding the purchase of her property.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to the pay the resident a total of £7,075 compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced broken down as:
  • £6,375 for the delays in the works to the communal area.
  • £300 for the landlord’s three-month delay in communicating the completion of repairs to the resident.
  • £400 for the poor communication throughout the proposed purchase of her property.