One Housing Group Limited (202009670)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009670

One Housing Group Limited

11 November 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding delays in the sales process to sell the property.
2. Response to a leak into the property.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was the shared-owner of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns. The resident sold their share of the property in August 2020.
The property is situated in a purpose-built block (the building).
The freehold of the building is owned by a third-party private company (the freeholder). The landlord holds a head-lease with the freeholder and an under-lease with the resident.
The freeholder employees its sister company (the company) to carry out its demised obligations in respect of the building.

Summary of events

In August 2019 the resident notified the landlord of her intention to sell her share of the property.
On 4 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it had been unable to nominate a buyer to purchase the property during the nomination period. The landlord confirmed that the resident may “now take [the property] to the open market”.
On 6 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had identified a buyer to purchase the property and to confirm that it had issued the memorandum of sale to the buyer’s solicitors.
On 18 June 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. The resident advised that she understood that there was some “outstanding paperwork” in relation to the sale of the property, including a cover letter for form EWS1 and the management pack, and she would therefore like an update. Within her correspondence the resident also explained that the building’s cooling system had “slightly leaked” into the property and she required the company to arrange for the repair and make good work to be completed as soon as possible. The resident noted she had attempted to address the leak with the company directly, when it was first discovered on 26 May 2020, however had been unsuccessful.
On the same day the landlord wrote to the company to chase an update on the status of the cover letter for form EWS1 and to request a schedule of works to address the leak in the property.
On 22 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord confirmed that the cover letter for form EWS1 had been sent to the buyer’s mortgage provider, the management pack had been sent to the resident’s solicitor and it had requested that the company provide an update on the status of the repair to fix the leak.
On 29 June 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. The resident explained that she had learnt that there had been a problem with form EWS1 and therefore requested an urgent update. The resident also advised that she had not had an update about the repair to fix the leak.
On the same day the landlord responded. The landlord confirmed that it had requested that the company contact the fire assessor it had appointed to complete the cladding inspection to amend form EWS1 so that it contained the correct details for the property. The landlord confirmed that it had received an update from the company who explained that it was in the process of obtaining parts to repair the leak before it could complete any make good works in the property. The landlord noted that it had informed the company that the property was in the process of being sold.
Later on 29 June 2020 the resident registered a complaint with the landlord regarding delays to the sale of the property due to outstanding paperwork and time taken to resolve and fix the leak into the property. In summary the resident said:
1. In respect of the sale of the property:
  1. The buyer for the property was confirmed in February 2020. Despite the landlord confirming that the sale of the property should take four to six weeks to complete the matter was ongoing. The resident stated that the delay appeared to be as a result of the company’s actions, however as her contract for the property was with the landlord she was required to escalate her concerns with it directly. The resident added that while she appreciated that the Covid-19 pandemic had slowed the process down initially, it was “not acceptable that it [was] taking so long for things to be resolved”.
  2. The paperwork for form EWS1 had “taken far too long to complete”, including an error on the cover letter and certificate in respect of the property’s door number.
  3. She would like the landlord to waive the sale fee of 1% plus VAT she was required to pay on completion of the sale of the property due to delays.
  4. As a result of the delays, she had continued to pay “extra months” of mortgage and rent on the property.
2. In respect of the leak:
  1. The leak was first identified on 26 May 2020 and it had not been repaired.
  2. While she appreciated that the company was waiting on parts to repair the source of the leak, the company could complete the make good works in the property. This was as the leak was not currently active.

On 30 June 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that the correct form EWS1 had been issued to the buyer’s mortgage provider. The landlord confirmed that it had also chased the company for an update on the leak and registered the resident’s complaint for a formal response under its complaint procedure.
On 2 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord in respect of her complaint. The resident asked the landlord to confirm who was dealing with the complaint and for confirmation that it had responded to all of the buyer’s solicitor’s queries. Within her correspondence the resident noted that she would be in the property for the last time in the upcoming week and if the make good repairs had not been completed by this time she would be “forced” to arrange it independently and recharge the cost to the landlord.
On 6 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to reiterate her complaint. The resident noted:
1. Despite identifying a buyer for the property, the transaction had not yet completed. The resident noted that the delay was causing “financial detriment and causing undue stress”. The resident stated that she had followed the steps required by the landlord to sell the property, as set out in its re-sale pack, however it had not done so.
2. The leak and make good works had been outstanding for 41 days.
3. She had not received formal acknowledgement that her complaint would be investigated.
On 7 July 2020 the landlord responded to the resident confirming that it had passed her email to its head of complaints and to the company.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had been informed by the company that the repair and make good works had been scheduled for 10 July 2020. The landlord also confirmed that the only outstanding enquiry which it was aware of in respect of the property was in relation to “a building certificate” which it was actively chasing with the company.
On 10 July 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident in respect of her complaint. The landlord’s record of the conversation noted:
1. It explained that its complaint investigation and response time was 15 working days.
2. The resident would like:
  1. Clarity on the missing documents needed to finalise the sale of the property.
  2. The landlord’s 1% plus VAT selling fee waived due to the delays.
  3. An explanation on how the landlord and company worked together, as it did not appear to be a positive relationship.
  4. An explanation detailing why the repair to fix and make good the leak was taking so long.
On 14 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord in respect of her complaint. In summary the resident said:
1. Despite the recent repair to fix the leak and make good the damaged area in the property, the leak had reoccurred.
2. The cooling system did not appear to be working properly and therefore needed to be fixed.
3. She had received no update in respect of her complaint and her outstanding concerns.
4. She believed that the landlord should refund her service charges from May 2020 until the new leak was remedied.
On 15 July 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s correspondence. The landlord apologised that the leak had reoccurred and confirmed that it would seek an update. The landlord also confirmed that it was currently in the process of investigating the resident’s complaint and was working to issue its response by 31 July 2020.
On 16 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that all enquiries raised by the buyer’s solicitor had now been responded to, including the provision of documents. In separate correspondence the landlord noted that the company had been on site at the building since “yesterday” investigating the source of the new leak and were working on a repair. The landlord confirmed that it was waiting on further information in respect of make good works and the defective cooling system.
On 18 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord in respect of the leak. The resident noted that the company had painted some ceiling areas, however she was not aware of “the status of the leak, the repair and whether the [cooling] system [was] working”. The resident added that the make good works in the property had not been completed, and the previous make good works following the original leak were unsatisfactory.
On 20 July 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had raised the make good works with the company. In separate correspondence the landlord confirmed that it had taken the mortgage approval fee directly from the buyer and suggested that the resident contact her solicitor to discuss exchange of contracts.
On 24 July 2020 the landlord spoke with the resident. The landlord’s record of the conversation noted that it had informed the resident that the company was waiting for a part to repair the cooling system.
On 29 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it had arranged to complete the make good works in the property on 30 July 2020, so that they were completed prior to the sale of the property which was scheduled for 5 August 2020.
On 30 July 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord to confirm that the make good works had not been completed to a satisfactory standard as the floor tiles were still stained. The resident also noted that the landlord needed to provide the buyer with a letter confirming that the cooling system was due to be repaired by the company in late August 2020 when the part arrived – to ensure that the sale of the property could complete in early August.
On the same day the landlord responded confirming that it had requested information on a follow up appointment in respect of the floor tiles. The landlord confirmed that it would also provide a formal letter to the buyer so that they would “not have any concerns that would halt the sale”.
On 31 July 2020 the landlord provided its formal response to the complaint. In summary the landlord said:
1. In respect of the sale of the property:
  1. It was sorry that there had been delays within the process of selling the property.
  2. It had been liaising with the company to obtain form EWS1 to aid the sale. Form EWS1 had now been provided to the buyer’s mortgage lender, with the correct address details.
  3. From 15 July 2020 there had been no outstanding enquiries from the buyer’s solicitor. The landlord confirmed that it had advised the resident’s solicitor of this.
  4. The property sale was due to complete on 5 August 2020.
  5. The monthly service charge and resale fee was “an obligatory fee to be paid which was stipulated within the [property’s] lease” and therefore could not be waived.
  6. It would like to offer £100 compensation in respect of this part of the resident’s complaint for inconvenience caused and as a gesture of good will.
2. In respect of the leak:
  1. It had no contractual relationship directly with the company as it was appointed by the freeholder. The landlord explained that this meant that it was “limited in terms of the action [it could] take with [the company] where there [were] delays or concerns raised by [its] residents”.
  2. While the company was bound to complete certain actions in accordance with the headlease, the headlease did not include service level agreement timescales for response or repairs. The landlord stated that this made escalation difficult where the company was engaging with it, however not as promptly as it would like.
  3. It appreciated that the resident was frustrated with the company, however the company continued to work with it to resolve the outstanding works in the property. The landlord noted that it was aware that the resident was particularly upset by some comments made by the company when she had reached out to it directly.
  4. As a gesture of goodwill it completed the make good works in the property on 20 July 2020 as the earliest the company could complete them was on 20 August 2020. The landlord confirmed that during the appointment it scraped, filled, stain blocked and painted the affected areas, in addition to cleaning the floor tiles with “suitable materials”.
  5. The company had advised that the part necessary to repair the cooling system was on order and would be installed once received.
  6. It would like to offer £50 compensation in respect of this part of the resident’s complaint as it recognised that there were “parts of this process where [it] could have provided greater assistance to [her] in dealing with [the company]”.
1. It was partially upholding the resident’s complaint as:
  1. It did not have a direct contractual relationship with the company and therefore it had no control over the company’s actions. The landlord noted that it could however improve the information and support provided to its residents.
  2. It was not responsible for the maintenance of the cooling system which leaked into the property.
  3. It was not responsible for arranging form EWS1 as it was not the freeholder of the building.

The landlord concluded by confirming that the resident may refer her complaint to this Service should she not be happy with its response.
The sale of the property completed on 5 August 2020.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding delays in the sales process to sell the property

The landlord has provided its records demonstrating its involvement in the sale of the property between 6 March 2020 – the date the memorandum of sale was issued, and 5 August 2020 – the date the sale completed. The records include correspondence between the resident, the resident’s solicitor, the buyer’s solicitor and the company.
The correspondence shows that during the period 6 March 2020 to 5 August 2020 the landlord was proactively engaging with all parties by responding to the enquiries put to it in respect of the sale. This includes in relation to the management pack, form LPE1, buildings insurance and the buyer’s mortgage. The Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the landlord significantly or intentionally delayed in responding to any enquiry. The Ombudsman appreciates that at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic some normal services provided by the landlord may have been significantly and unavoidably disrupted during the pandemic, as recognised by the resident herself.
As part of the sale, the buyer’s mortgage lender required form EWS1 for the building, demonstrating that the building was compliant with Government guidance in relation to fire safety and cladding. The Ombudsman notes that form EWS1 was introduced in December 2019. The Ombudsman further notes that following the introduction of form EWS1 there was a shortage of experts available who were able to complete the form, thus causing delays across the sector in the production of the form.
As the landlord is not the freeholder of the building it was unable to obtain form EWS1 itself. The company was responsible for doing so on behalf of the freeholder. While the landlord could not obtain form EWS1, the Ombudsman does consider that the landlord had a responsibility for ensuring that the form was obtained by the company. This is because the resident’s contract for the property was with the landlord and not the freeholder or the company.
The evidence shows that from April 2020 through June 2020 the landlord chased the company for form EWS1. Form EWS1 was provided to the landlord by the company on 8 June 2020. The evidence shows that from 10 June 2020 the landlord chased the company for an amended form EWS1 as an error was identified on the copy which was issued on 8 June 2020. The amended form EWS1 was received by the landlord on 30 June 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions in respect of form EWS1 were appropriate. Throughout the period that form EWS1 was outstanding the landlord was actively chasing the company for the document. This was appropriate as the landlord was aware that the sale of the property could not proceed without it.
The landlord’s Resale booklet sets out that it will charge the leaseholder a fee of 1% plus VAT of the value of their share in the property when selling the property – the resale fee. The booklet further states that where the landlord does not find a suitable purchaser for the property it will not charge the resale fee. From the evidence presented the Ombudsman understands that the buyer for the property was nominated by the landlord and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to decline to waive this fee.
In responding to the complaint the landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation, as detailed in paragraph 30. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was reasonable as it identified that the process to sell the property had taken longer than anticipated and therefore to acknowledge this.

The landlord’s response to a leak into the property

As the landlord is not the freeholder of the building it is not responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of the communal systems serving the individual flats. This is the responsibility of the freeholder. However, as the resident’s contract for the property was with the landlord, not the freeholder, the Ombudsman would expect to see pro-active engagement by the landlord with the company, who have been employed by the freeholder to carry out its demised obligations, to pursue the resident’s concerns regarding maintenance and repair issues affecting the communal areas of the building
Within the resident’s correspondence dated 14 July 2020 she states that the leak into the property from the cooling system occurred on 26 May 2020. From review of the evidence the earliest record which the Ombudsman has identified of the resident informing the landlord of the leak is dated 18 June 2020. As the landlord was not informed of the leak between 26 May and 17 June 2020, it could not have been aware that intervention was required to resolve it during this period.
Following notification of the leak on 18 June 2020, and on the same day, the landlord contacted the company to raise a repair and to request that it provide a schedule of works. This was an appropriate response as the leak was reported to have been caused by a fault to the cooling system which the company was responsible for. The evidence shows that the company completed the repair to remedy the leak on 10 July 2020, in addition to completing make good works in the property. This was a period of 16 working days. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable timeframe, noting that the resident had not reported to the landlord that the leak was on-going, and therefore an emergency response was required. Further the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s repair policy sets out that routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days.
The resident reported to the landlord that the leak had reoccurred on 14 July 2020. In response the landlord contacted the company on 15 July 2020 to seek a response and action to remedy the leak. This was appropriate as the source of the leak was reported to be from a system which the company was responsible for maintaining. The evidence shows that the company attended the building promptly on 15 and 16 July 2020 to investigate and stop the leak. As the company were onsite promptly following notification of the leak it was reasonable that the landlord did not take any further action at that time.
In response to the resident’s notification on 18 July 2020 that the make good works from the original leak were unsatisfactory and further make good works were required following the second leak, the evidence shows that the landlord promptly contacted the company for a response and an appointment. Following the landlord’s contact the company confirmed that it was able to complete the make good works on 20 August 2020. As the landlord was aware that the resident was not satisfied with the company’s timeframe, due to the on-going sale of the property, it agreed to complete the works itself on 30 July 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable response by the landlord, demonstrating that it recognised the potential impact of the delay in completing the make good works on the sale of the property and therefore the resident.
As the resident was not satisfied with the make good works in relation to the floor tiles, following the landlord’s attendance, the landlord confirmed that it would refer the matter back to the company for a response. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable, as the damage to the floor was as a result of a leak from a system which the company was responsible for. The Ombudsman is not clear on the outcome of the floor tiles as the sale of the property completed shortly after the landlord confirmed its position in relation to the matter.
While the company was able to stop the leak on or around 16 July 2020, the evidence shows that it was unable to repair the fault to the cooling system at that time also, as a part was required. The landlord notified the resident of the delay to fix the cooling system on 24 July 2020. The Ombudsman appreciates that on some occasions a full repair may not always be possible immediately due to the nature of the fault and availability of parts required to undertake the repair. As the landlord was aware the cooling system was due to be completed after the scheduled completion date for the sale of the property, 5 August 2020, it was appropriate that it agreed to provide a formal letter to the buyer in regard to the matter in order to provide reassurances that the repair would be completed on receipt of the necessary part.
In responding to the complaint the landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation, as detailed in paragraph 30. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was reasonable, noting that the Ombudsman has not identified any service failure, but to recognise the inconvenience the leak will have caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The complaint procedure which the landlord operated when the complaint was live consisted of two stages. The first stage of the process was an informal stage where it would attempt to work with the resident to resolve the issues subject of the complaint. The second stage of the process involved a formal investigation with a final response. The complaint procedure states that at stage two of the process the landlord will provide a written response within 15 working days, and where this is not possible it will contact the complainant to agree a new response time.
From review of the chronology of the complaint the evidence shows that the resident registered her complaint on 29 June 2020 and it was acknowledged by the landlord on 30 June 2020. Despite the resident chasing for update on the status of her complaint following the landlord’s acknowledgment it was not until 10 July 2020 that the landlord confirmed that it would conduct an investigation and provide a formal response within 15 working days. While the landlord delayed in providing the resident with confirmation on how the complaint would be dealt with and responded to, in the Ombudsman’s opinion alone it does not amount to a service failure. This is because overall the landlord’s final response was not provided significantly outside of its service standard, and therefore there was no significant determinant to the resident. Further the Ombudsman notes that while the complaint was live the landlord was in contact with the resident and it was taking steps to progress the matters subject of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns regarding delays in the sales process to sell the property.
2. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to a leak into the property.
3. No maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding delays in the sales process to sell the property

The correspondence shows that during the period 6 March 2020 to 5 August 2020 the landlord was proactively engaging with all parties by responding to the enquiries put to it in respect of the sale. This includes in relation to the management pack, form LPE1, buildings insurance and the buyer’s mortgage. The Ombudsman has not identified any evidence which demonstrates that the landlord significantly or intentionally delayed in responding to any enquiry.
Throughout the period that form EWS1 was outstanding the landlord was actively chasing the landlord for the document. This was appropriate as the landlord was aware that the sale of the property could not proceed without it.

The landlord’s response to a leak into the property

The landlord’s response to the leak was appropriate because:
1. On notification of the leak it contacted the company to raise a repair which was then completed within 20 working days.
2. On notification that the leak had reoccurred it contacted the company to seek a remedy.
3. In response to the resident’s concerns that the make good works from the original leak were unsatisfactory and further make good works were required following the second leak the landlord promptly contacted the company for a response and an appointment.
4. It completed the make good works itself when it identified that the works would not be completed prior to the scheduled completion date to minimise any impact on the sale of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer the resident’s ongoing concerns with the damage to the floor tiles after its make good attempt to the company, as the damage was caused as a result of a fault from a system which it was responsible for.
5. It kept the resident updated on the works to resolve the fault to the cooling system, in addition to agreeing to provide a formal letter to the buyer in regard to the matter in order to provide reassurances that the repair would be completed on receipt of the necessary part.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While the landlord did not provide its final response to the complaint within its service standard it does not amount to a service failure. This is because overall the landlord’s final response was not provided significantly outside of its service standard, and therefore there was no significant determinant to the resident. In addition, while the complaint was live the landlord was in contact with the resident and it was taking steps to progress the matters subject of the complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord should share the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code with its staff members who deal with complaints in order to ensure that complaints are responded to in line with best practice.
The landlord should pay the resident the compensation which it awarded in consideration of the complaint if it has not already done so.
If the repair to the cooling system and make good works to the floor tiles are outstanding the landlord should contact the new owner of the property to provide an update and to discuss a way forward.