Onward Homes Limited (202402569)

Background

1. The property is a flat in a block that is over 18 metres high. A private company is the freeholder of the building, which is managed by a subsidiary of the landlord. For simplicity, this report will make reference to the landlord, who is responsible for ensuring its subsidiary meets its obligations under the resident’s lease agreement.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the lift breaking down.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding leaks.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding building cleaning.
   4. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the consultation process for carrying out major works to the building.
   5. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charges account.
   6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of the lift breaking down.
4. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding leaks.
5. There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding building cleaning.
6. There was service failure by the landlord in its communication with the resident regarding the consultation process for carrying out major works to the building.
7. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its administration of the resident’s service charge account.
8. There was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Lift.

9. The landlord did not keep the resident updated whilst the lift was out of action, address his concerns regarding the response from its out of hours service or offer him compensation.

Leaks

10. The landlord did not repair the roof leak in a timely manner and its communication with the resident was poor at times.

Building cleaning.

11. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and the building was not cleaned in accordance with its cleaning specification.

Consultation regarding major works.

12. The landlord did not notify the resident that it had sought approval from the FTT to dispense with the need to carry out a section 20 consultation exercise and did not tell him the meeting in February 2024 had been postponed. There is also no evidence he was sent an invitation for the meeting organised in March 2024. The landlord did later provide the resident with access to the shared team’s channel and set out its position in its complaint responses.

Service charges.

13. Whilst there was an initial delay in responding to the resident’s request for information regarding the service charges, the landlord did later provide an explanation on why it changed the budget documentation format and acknowledged it could have provided a more detailed explanation regarding costs.

Complaint handling.

14. The landlord offered an apology and compensation for its poor complaints handling.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

15. It is unclear from the housing records when the resident reported the lift had broken down. The landlord’s contractor attended on 14 December 2023 to repair the damaged lift door and noted that parts were required. It said it would complete the repairs on the following day and provided the landlord with a quote for the damaged lift flooring. The landlord raised an order on the same day to replace the damaged flooring and it asked the contractor to confirm when the work would be done. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
16. There is no evidence the landlord’s contractor attended on 15 December 2023 despite saying it would do so. The landlord chased up the contractor on 18 December 2023, who confirmed it had attended on that day and repaired the lift. It told the landlord on 20 December 2023 that the lift had been shut down as a replacement belt monitor was required. No timescales were provided for completing the work.
17. This Service recognises that faults occur with lifts and there are sometimes delays in obtaining parts. Where this happens, it is important that landlords keep residents updated, including providing estimated timeframes for completing any work. These updates should be provided proactively and not only in response to complaints. In this case the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and led to him chasing it up on a number of occasions in December 2023 and January 2024. The situation caused him inconvenience, time and trouble.
18. The landlord chased up the contractor on 3 January 2024. The contractor responded on the same day and noted it was waiting for the parts to be delivered. It told the landlord on 4 January 2024 that the flooring work would be completed on the following day. Whilst the work to the lift floor was completed on 5 January 2024, the lift remained out of order.
19. The lift was repaired on 12 January 2024 and the resident was provided with an update. This was appropriate.
20. The resident noted on 17 March 2024 in his complaint that it took the landlord 6 weeks to repair the lift and the response from its out of hours team was inadequate. He also said he had to contact the lift company himself to get the work done.
21. When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, this Service considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to the complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
22. In this case, the landlord noted on 17 April 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the delay in repairing the lift was due to the breakdown occurring during the Christmas period and because specialist parts were required. Whilst this provided clarity, it did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay. This was not consistent with its compensation policy. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns about the response from its out of hours service or acknowledge its communication with the resident was poor. This demonstrated the landlord did not take learning from this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
23. The landlord offered the resident an apology for any inconvenience that was caused in its final complaint response on 31 July 2024. Whilst this was appropriate, it again failed to offer the resident any compensation or acknowledge its communication with him was poor. This was a failure.
24. In summary, the landlord did not keep the resident updated whilst the lift was out of action. This was despite him chasing it up on a number of occasions. It also failed to address his concerns regarding the response from its out of hours service or offer him compensation. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord, for which it is ordered to pay £100 compensation.

25. Under the terms of the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord is required to maintain and repair the structure of the building which includes the roof. It is not responsible for repairing leaks in leaseholders’ flats, except to repair any damage caused to the structure or installations owned by the landlord. No timescales are included in the landlord’s repairs policy for repairing leaks.
26. It is unclear from the housing records when issues with the building roof were first identified. The landlord’s contractor noted on 30 August 2023 that it had arranged for the roof to be inspected on 8 September 2023. The landlord told the resident on 15 September 2023 that some work had been completed but further repairs were required.
27. A further update was provided to the resident on 18 September 2023. This included noting the rainwater pipe would be replaced and the communal hallway redecorated. It apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the problem and said it would confirm when the work would be carried out. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence it did this. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord. It is also unclear from the housing records if or when the work was carried out.
28. The resident told the landlord on 11 January 2024 that the roof was still leaking and the ceiling in the communal area was damaged. Further requests for updates were made on 6 February 2024 and 20 February 2024. Whilst the landlord responded on each occasion, it did not confirm what action it was taking or advise the resident when the work would be completed. This was a failure and led to the resident making a complaint on 17 March 2024.
29. The landlord told the resident on 17 April 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it was working with a specialist contractor to identify the cause of the leak and would provide an update as soon as it had more information.
30. Whilst this Service recognises it can be difficult to identify the source of a roof leak, the landlord’s response did not demonstrate it was acting with a sense of urgency to resolve the matter. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised the roof repairs considering the leak had been ongoing for over 6 months. The landlord did not offer an apology or compensation for the delay in repairing the roof. This was not consistent with its compensation policy.
31. The resident told the landlord on 27 April 2024 there was a leak on the ground floor and the flooring in the communal area had been damaged by the flood. He also said the landlord’s out of hours service was ‘‘not fit for purpose.’’ There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report of a leak at this point. It would have been reasonable for it to have done this given it was responsible for the structure of the building. This was a failure.
32. The landlord told the resident on 29 April 2024 that the leak was coming from one of the flats and it had contacted the owner. It said the water supply had been turned off that morning and it would make good any damage once the ceiling had dried out. It also confirmed it had passed on the resident’s concerns about its out of hours team and noted a surveyor would be on site during the week to inspect the roof.
33. The landlord told the resident on 1 May 2024 that it was not responsible for fixing leaks in leaseholder flats and that it notified the owner as soon as it became aware of the leak on the ground floor. This provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations.
34. The resident reported a further leak on the ground floor on 5 July 2024. The landlord confirmed on the same day that it had spoken to the letting agency, who had arranged for a plumber to attend. It also arranged for the communal area and electrics to be checked. This was appropriate.
35. The landlord noted on 31 July 2024 in its final complaint response that it had arranged for a specialist assessment to be undertaken. This was some 10 months after it told the resident it had identified the cause of the leak and it had previously confirmed it was taking this course of action in its stage 1 complaint response. The delay was not reasonable and demonstrated the landlord did not prioritise the roof repair. The landlord did not offer any compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
36. In summary, the landlord failed to prioritise the roof repair and its communication with the resident was poor at times. The landlord’s complaint responses also failed to demonstrate insight and it did not offer any compensation. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, distress, time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord, for which it is ordered to pay £300 compensation.

37. The landlord’s homeownership guide says it will ensure communal areas are kept clean. It carries out monthly inspections to check the quality of the cleaning.
38. The resident reported concerns about the cleaning standard in the communal areas in September 2023. The landlord told the resident the service had been brought back in house and it had shared the resident’s concerns with its environmental services team. It told the resident on 11 January 2024 that it would reduce his service charge given there had been no caretaker for several months. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
39. The resident told the landlord on 17 March 2024 in his complaint that the cleaning service was inadequate. Whilst the landlord carried out a monthly block inspection on 22 March 2024 and noted a deep clean was required after the building work had been completed, there is no evidence the resident was provided with an update. This demonstrated poor communication on the part of the landlord.
40. The landlord confirmed on 17 April 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that the building was cleaned on a fortnightly basis. Whilst this provided clarity, the cleaning schedule provided to this Service does not confirm this to be the case. This was because the cleaning schedule does not indicate the building was cleaned between 8 February 2024 (incorrectly recorded as 8 January 2024) and when the complaint response was issued.
41. The landlord said it would arrange to carry out a quality audit inspection during the next visit scheduled to take place on 18 April 2024. This demonstrated the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and wanted to put things right for him. It is unclear from the housing records what the outcome of the quality audit inspection was. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord.
42. The resident told the landlord on 17 April 2024 in his complaint escalation request that the top floor of the building was a mess. Whilst the landlord carried out a scheduled cleaning visit on the following day, there is no evidence it responded to the resident’s specific concerns. This was a failure and led to him asking the landlord on 27 April 2024 to carry out a walkabout with him during the following week. The landlord responded on 29 April 2024 and said it could not arrange a walkabout at short notice. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have offered the resident alternative dates for the walkabout. This would have helped rebuild trust.
43. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns about cleaning in its final complaint response issued on 31 July 2024. This was not consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code) and meant the resident was not clear on what action, if any was being taken by the landlord to address his concerns.
44. In summary, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and the building was not cleaned for 8 weeks between February 2024 and April 2024. The situation caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble in pursuing his complaint. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord, for which it is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation.

45. What this Service can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
46. The resident’s lease agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the building and common areas in a good state of repair. Under section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, a landlord must consult with leaseholders before it undertakes any work which will cost any leaseholder more than £250. This includes repairs, maintenance and improvements to the building.
47. Under certain circumstances, a landlord can apply to the FTT for dispensation from the need to consult leaseholders. They can do this if urgent works are required to ensure the safety, security or habitability of the building. Applications can be made prior to the work starting or retrospectively in some cases.
48. The housing records confirm the fire authority served an enforcement notice on the building freeholder on 30 October 2023. It said it had identified breaches in the internal compartmentation. The landlord was ordered to carry out a building survey and take action to ensure the safety of residents by 18 April 2024.
49. The landlord submitted an application to the FTT on 15 December 2023. It said it needed to take urgent action to prevent the spread of fire in the building. It sent the resident a section 20 notice (1st notice) on 20 December 2023. It said it needed to carry out urgent fire safety work to the building following discussions with the fire authority. This included carrying out compartmentation work and work to the automated opening vents (AOVs). The resident was asked to provide comments by 26 January 2024.
50. Whilst the landlord’s actions were appropriate, it did not advise the resident that it had sought approval from the FTT to dispense with the need to carry out the section 20 consultation exercise. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have done this. This would have ensured it managed the resident’s expectations and helped build trust.
51. The landlord arranged a leaseholders’ meeting in February 2024 to discuss the planned works. This was consistent with its guide to planned works. It offered the resident an apology on 21 February 2024 for failing to advise him the meeting had been postponed and told him it had been rearranged for 7 March 2024. It said invitations for the meeting would be sent out during the following week. Whilst the landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances, there is no evidence the resident was sent an invitation for the meeting.
52. The meeting took place on 7 March 2024. Notes from the meeting confirm the landlord provided an explanation on why the work was required and why it applied for dispensation from carrying out a section 20 consultation exercise. It confirmed it had undertaken a tendering exercise using its existing procurement framework given the urgent nature of the work. It also confirmed its procurement framework had previously been subject to tender and followed Official Journal of the European union (OJEU) requirements. This provided clarity. The landlord said it would share key documentation in the team’s channel. This helped rebuild trust.
53. It’s unclear whether the resident attended the meeting or when the meeting notes were shared with him. He told the landlord on 17 March 2024 in his complaint that he was not included in the emails regarding the meeting or invited to join the team’s channel. He also said the landlord failed to notify him that the initial meeting had been postponed and it did not provide evidence to substantiate the need for fire safety compartmentation works. Neither did it offer an explanation for bypassing the section 20 consultation exercise.
54. The landlord noted on 17 April 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that residents were notified about the change in the date of the meeting via email and notices were placed in the building. It also said letters were sent to residents where it did not hold an email address. Whilst the landlord said it sent the resident letters on 1 March 2024 and 14 March 2024, it did not share copies of the letters with this Service. This demonstrated poor record-keeping on the part of the landlord. The landlord said it did not receive a response from the resident confirming he wanted access to the team’s channel.
55. The landlord confirmed the need to carry out the compartmentation work was identified following a fire risk assessment and was classified as urgent. It also said the fire authority had issued an enforcement notice and had instructed the landlord to carry out the work within a specific timescale. The landlord confirmed key documentation had been shared on the team’s channel and that the work had been tendered within its procurement framework. This provided clarity.
56. The resident told the landlord on 17 April 2024 that it had his email address and he did not receive the letters regarding the meeting until several weeks after the event. He also said he requested access to the team’s channel on 17 March 2024, although the evidence seen by this Service does not confirm this to be the case.
57. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 31 July 2024 in its final complaint response.
58. In summary, the landlord did not notify the resident that it had sought approval from the FTT to dispense with the need to carry out a section 20 consultation exercise and did not tell him the meeting in February 2024 had been postponed. There is also no evidence the resident was sent an invitation for the meeting held in March 2024. The landlord did, however, later provide the resident with access to the team’s channel and set out its position in its complaint responses.
59. The situation caused the resident time and trouble having to pursue the matter. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord, for which it is ordered to pay the resident £50 compensation.

60. The resident has indicated that he was unhappy with the level of service charges levied by the landlord.
61. The resident told the landlord on 5 March 2024 that he disputed the service charge demand raised on 21 February 2024. He also said the charges were not reasonable and the breakdown of costs lacked clarity. He asked the landlord to provide a detailed explanation regarding the costs, including information on the budget using the same format as it had used in previous years.
62. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. This led to him making a complaint on 17 March 2024. He said the landlord had failed to organise a meeting to discuss the increase in the service charges, despite agreeing to do so. He also said the landlord had failed to provide ‘‘adequate and transparent’’ information about the budget.
63. The landlord acknowledged on 17 April 2024 in its stage 1 complaint response that it had changed the format of the budget documentation. It said it did this in consultation with the homeowners’ forum and noted that the resident had not suffered any detriment as a result of the changes that had been made. It also noted the resident’s lease agreement did not specify how budget information should be presented. This provided clarity.
64. The landlord acknowledged it could have provided a more detailed explanation regarding costs. It said more information would be included in the budget statements going forward where costs had increased significantly. This demonstrated the landlord took learning from the resident’s complaint.
65. The landlord apologised for not organising a meeting to discuss the increase in service charges and noted that it had addressed queries from leaseholders during the meeting held on 7 March 2024. It also said it had issued a note following the meeting and provided additional information on the shared team’s site. In addition, the landlord provided information on the previous year’s costs so that comparisons could be made. It offered to discuss any further concerns with the resident and advised him of his right to approach the FTT. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
66. The resident noted on 17 April 2024 in his complaint escalation request that whilst the landlord had provided a breakdown of costs, it did not do this until several months after he made a request for further information. He also noted the meeting that was arranged for 7 March 2024 was to discuss the compartmentation work and not the service charges.
67. The landlord reconfirmed its position on 31 July 2024 in its final complaint response. This included noting that it had provided additional information about the budget and expenditure with the stage 1 complaint response. The landlord also said it had identified further learning from the resident’s complaint and it would review the frequency of meetings with leaseholders to improve communication. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
68. In summary, whilst there was an initial delay in responding to the resident’s request for information regarding the service charges, the landlord did later provide an explanation on why it changed the budget documentation format and acknowledged it could have provided a more detailed explanation regarding costs. It shared further information with the resident and set out the learning it had identified from the resident’s complaint. In this case, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

73. The resident made a complaint on 17 March 2024. The complaint was acknowledged by the landlord on 21 March 2024. This was not consistent with the 2-working day target timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. There is no evidence the landlord sought to understand the resident’s complaint or the outcomes he was seeking. This was not consistent with its complaints policy or the Code. The landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days.
74. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint by the deadline date. This led to the resident chasing up the landlord on 4 April 2024. He asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2 given he had not received a response. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s request. This was a further failure and meant he was not clear on what action would be taken by the landlord to address his concerns.
75. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 17 April 2024. This was some 4 weeks after the resident made a complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding and offered the resident £100 compensation. This was appropriate. Whilst the letter was titled ‘‘stage 1 complaint response,’’ the landlord said it was responding to the resident’s complaint escalation request. It also noted he had exhausted its complaints process. This caused confusion.
76. The resident responded on the same day. He said he was unhappy with the landlord’s response and he had asked for his complaint to be escalated 20 days earlier. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request. This was a further failure and led to him chasing up the landlord on 19 July 2024.
77. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 24 July 2024. It said it would provide a response by 31 July 2024.
78. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 31 July 2024. This was some 17 weeks after the resident escalated his complaint and was not consistent with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord offered an apology and increased its offer of compensation to £250 for the delay in responding and the confusion caused in relation to its stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s actions were reasonable in the circumstances.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

79. We identified issues regarding the landlord’s record keeping in this case. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate and clear records so it is able to meet its obligations.

Communication

80. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times and it failed to respond to a number of his request for updates.