Wolverhampton City Council (202221465)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221465

Wolverhampton City Council

28 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s request for leaseholder forum meetings to be reinstated.
2. Delay in providing copies of building insurance policy and painting contract.
3. Delay in providing contact details for tenant board members.
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The complaint was submitted to the landlord and brought to this Service on behalf of the resident by his representative. The resident is a leaseholder of a 3-bedroom leasehold flat, for which the landlord is a Local Authority. The terms ‘representative’ and ‘resident’ may be used interchangeably in the report to mean the resident.
The leaseholder purchased the property on 23 March 2022.
The landlord has confirmed that up until the Covid-19 pandemic, it held in person leaseholder forum meetings approximately 3 times per year. The meetings were suspended at the start of the pandemic due to government restrictions in place at that time. The landlord explained that it decided not to hold the meetings virtually as not all members had online access.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman acknowledges that following the landlord’s stage 2 response, the representative expressed concern regarding a comment made by the landlord. While we acknowledge that this comment may have caused upset to the representative, the concerns raised by him will not be included within this investigation. This is because in accordance with paragraph 42 of the Ombudsman scheme, we will not investigate complaints that are “made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the issue, it is recommended that he raises a formal complaint to the landlord. The resident may refer this matter to the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied once he has received the landlord’s final response to his concerns.

Summary of events

The representative emailed the landlord on 29 April and 9 May 2022 to ask about leaseholder forum meetings. In particular he asked about management for the meetings and the frequency of them. In addition, he asked for the contact details of the Chair and for the date of the next meeting.
The landlord responded the following day explaining that it would provide an update when available. Following on from this, there was an email exchange between the representative and the landlord in which the representative asked the landlord for the meeting joining details, the contact information for the leasehold team, and questioned why the meetings couldn’t take place online. The landlord provided the contact details for the leasehold team and explained that the meetings had been suspended during the Pandemic. It added that it was in discussion regarding the possible reinstatement of the meetings.
As part of an email exchange between the representative and the landlord, on 30 June 2022 the resident asked again about the leaseholder forum meetings. On 4 July 2022 the landlord replied and stated that it did not have any further updates in respect of the reinstatement of the meetings but that it was considering future options.
On 12 September 2022 the representative submitted 2 separate complaints (only one is relevant to this investigation) via the landlord’s online complaints form. As part of the complaint, the representative explained that he was renting the property from the leaseholder who had given him permission to ask about the leaseholder meetings. He stated that he had contacted the landlord approximately 3 months earlier to ask about the meetings and had been told that the landlord was considering the options, and that it would notify leaseholders in the ‘near future’. The representative added that he had been told that the in-person meetings had previously been held 3 times per year. He questioned why the meetings could not be re-instated online and added that as a resolution to his complaint he wanted the meetings reinstated ‘sooner rather than in the near future’.
On 26 September 2022 the representative wrote to the landlord in respect of a letter the landlord had sent dated 15 September 2022 in which it mentioned building insurance and painting contracts. This Service has not seen a copy of the letter; however, its existence has not been disputed by the landlord. The representative stated that the resident was unhappy that the landlord had only allowed 10 working days to view the contracts and asked the landlord 4 questions in respect of the preparation and viewing of the contracts. The representative asked the landlord to provide him with the details of the location, dates, and times that he could view the aforementioned contracts. In addition, he asked why there had not been any leaseholder meetings in 2022 and questioned again why the meetings were not held online.
The following day he emailed the landlord again and explained that he had submitted 2 complaints via the landlord’s online complaint form on 13 September 2022 but that he had not received an acknowledgement or response to either. He added that this was the third time he had asked the landlord to provide the contact details for the tenant board.
In an email exchange between 3 October 2022 and 25 October 2022 the landlord explained that it did not give out internal contact details but assured the representative that his requests had been sent to the relevant team and that he would be contacted in due course. The representative explained that it was reasonable to request the contact details for tenant board members and that despite having contacted the landlord several times, up until that point the only reply the landlord had given was that his request had been passed to the ‘relevant team’. On 12 October the landlord asked the representative for his contact telephone number so that it could contact him. He responded the same day and confirmed the reason for which he wanted the contact details for the tenant board members. The following day the landlord asked the representative for the details of any outstanding issues so that it could check the progress and stated that if he had raised the issues as part of a complaint, it would also check progress of the complaint. The representative reiterated that he had asked for, but had been denied, the contact details for the tenants’ board members. In response to the landlord’s suggestion that it would ask the Chair of the board to contact him directly, the representative stated that he wanted to contact the board members individually and was disappointed that the landlord was denying him access to their contact details. The landlord explained that it could not give out board member’s personal contact numbers, but it would pass written correspondence to them, and they could contact him directly. The representative explained that he preferred written communication and consequently was asking for email or postal addresses and not telephone numbers. He added that he preferred not to send his correspondence via the landlord as his concerns were confidential.
Evidence showed another email exchange between 5 October and 14 October 2022between the representative and the landlord in which he queried why he had not received a response to the letter he sent on 26 September 2022 asking to view the building insurance policy and painting contracts. He explained that as he had not received a response, he had attempted to hand deliver the letter to the landlord’s office but that no one was available to receive it, so had instead posted it. The landlord replied on 14 October 2022, it stated that it understood that the representative had submitted a complaint. The landlord explained that in respect of the consultation (it is not stated, but it is reasonable to assume that the landlord intended to mean the consultation of the building insurance and painting contracts), it could extend the timescale available to inspect the documents. It added that it had spoken with the relevant team who were leading on the procurement and that it would confirm more the following week. In respect of the leaseholder forum, it explained that the meetings were suspended due to the Pandemic and that since then, there had been team changes. It added that it was liaising internally and that it would soon be putting together a new strategy.
Evidence indicates that the landlord and the resident had a telephone conversation on 10 October 2022 in which they discussed the complaint. Following on from the conversation the representative sent the full details of his complaint as submitted via the landlord’s online form. However, on 19 October 2022 he realised that the email he had sent following the telephone conversation had gone to the wrong address and so resent it. The complaint set out various concerns. The issues relevant to this investigation are that:
1. The resident was disappointed that the leaseholder forum meetings had not recommenced following the relaxation of government restrictions linked to the pandemic. The resident maintained that they could be held online.
2. He was unhappy that the landlord failed to respond to the complaints he submitted online on 12 September 2022.
3. The resident was dissatisfied that the landlord only allowed leaseholders 10 working days to view and comment on 2 contracts. He stated that in addition to the short timescale the letter took 9 days to reach the resident.
4. He was disappointed that despite several requests the landlord refused to provide the contact details for the tenant board members. He stated that while the website provided names of each of the members, there was no way of contacting them.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaint process on 27 October 2022. It apologised to the resident and responded to each of the issues in turn. It said that:
1. The leaseholder forum meetings ceased because of the pandemic and the decision was made not to conduct the meetings online as not all members had access to online services. It added that there had since been several staffing changes and it was decided that it would be prudent to carry out a review of the forum and how it was set up. A meeting had was due to take place in early November 2022 to discuss new ways to engage with leaseholders, moving forward. It added that it would send details to all leaseholders as soon as available. The landlord did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
2. The complaints that were submitted online were forwarded to the appropriate team. The landlord apologised that they were not responded to within a reasonable timescale and upheld that element of his complaint.
3. It had responded to the resident’s enquiry about the contract within the 21-day timescale prescribed. It explained that it was putting together the required documentation, and it would arrange with the resident and representative a convenient time to view the documents. It added that this was despite the representative not being the leaseholder. The landlord did not uphold this part of the complaint.
4. It confirmed that the representative’s request for the tenant board member contact details had not been declined. But added that it was not usual practice to issue tenant members personal contact details. The landlord acknowledged that the representative preferred to communicate in writing and reiterated that it would be willing to forward any written correspondence.
The representative emailed the landlord on 1 November, 8 November and 15 November 2022 asking for a date when he could view the painting and building insurance contracts. The landlord responded on 18 November 2022 and explained that it was waiting for some additional information in relation to the insurance and that it would provide an update by the following week.
The representative emailed the landlord again on 22 November 2022 to ask for a copy of the contracts. He stated that in its letter, the landlord said that any leaseholder wanting to view the contracts needed to make a request by 17 October 2022. The representative explained that he had done this, yet the landlord had failed to provide copies of the contracts. He also asked when the next leaseholder meeting would take place.
On 25 November 2022 the representative emailed the landlord to explain that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response and that he would seek advice from the Housing ombudsman. He maintained that the response was lacking in detail and in particular:
1. Despite having asked for a leaseholder forum meeting, the landlord had failed to arrange this. He did not agree that the landlord provided a valid reason for not recommencing the meetings, at least online.
2. Neither himself nor the resident had been sent copies of the contracts.
The representative said that he did not feel there was any benefit to escalating his complaint to stage 2 as the landlord would most likely respond as per its stage 1 response.
On 1 December 2022 the representative repeated his request for the contact details for the tenant board members, the date of the next leaseholder meeting and a copy of the 2 contracts previously mentioned.
An internal email exchange between 30 November 2022 and 9 December 2022 demonstrated that the landlord was seeking a resolution to the complaints. The exchange set out that in response to the concerns about the lack of leaseholder meetings, the landlord was reviewing a city-wide approach to customer experience and that it had discussed a revised meeting approach with an aim to relaunch meetings in the New Year. The landlord confirmed that it was seeking to progress an agreeable solution to the representative’s request in relation to the contact details for tenant board members.
Evidence provided, showed that there was a further internal email exchange on 21 December 2022 in respect of the landlord’s requirement to provide copies of the policies. The exchange appeared to show that there was some confusion regarding the landlord’s requirements and a suggestion that the representative should make a Freedom of Information request.
On 22 December 2022, following contact with this Service, the representative emailed the landlord to confirm why he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response. Some of the issues raised do not form part of this investigation.
1. He maintained that he had asked the landlord for confirmation of a date for the leaseholder forum meetings since March 2022 and he did not agree that the landlord could not hold the meetings due to leaseholders not having online access.
2. He repeated his concern about the landlord’s failure to provide copies of the requested contracts within a reasonable timescale, particularly given that the landlord had written to leaseholders with a deadline by which they needed to provide a written response.
3. He explained that he was disappointed that it had taken so long to provide contact details for the tenant board members and was frustrated by the landlord’s delay in providing the information requested.
The landlord responded informally the same day. It explained that:
1. It was reviewing its methods of customer engagement and that it had met with the Chair and Vice Chair of the leasehold forum to discuss a revised meeting approach, with the aim of relaunching a refreshed suite of meetings in 2023.
2. It was liaising with the relevant teams regarding the contracts requested. It attached a copy of the painting contract and advised the representative that it would be available to answer any queries he may have in the new year. This Service has seen an undated copy of the contract. The landlord explained that it was unable to provide a copy of the building’s insurance at that time.
3. It had provided the board members details, as requested.
In his response on 3 January 2023. The representative said that:
1. He was disappointed that it had taken 9 months of him asking for a date of the next meeting and despite the landlord having liaised internally it was still not able to provide a date for the future meetings. He reminded the landlord that he had previously submitted confirmation of his interest to be involved in the meetings and felt that the landlord’s responses were dismissive.
2. He repeated his concerns regarding the access to the painting and building insurance contracts and expressed further concern at the landlord’s suggestion that the building insurance contract was not available.
3. He had received contact details for 3 out of the 4 tenant board members.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 January 2023 and advised that it would respond formally no later than 2 February 2023.
There was a further email exchange between the resident and the landlord between 16 January 2023 and 27 January 2023 in which the representative reminded the landlord that he was still waiting for the building insurance contract and that he had questions about the painting contract. The landlord responded and attached a copy of the specification for the insurance tender process and invited the representative to submit any questions about the painting contract. It further explained that it did not have a date set for the leaseholder meeting, but it had scheduled a meeting for February to discuss its strategy for the meetings, following which it would provide an update. In response the resident asked for the full building’s insurance contract. The landlord explained that the full contract was not available and acknowledged the representative’s frustration in relation to the delay arranging the leaseholder meetings.
The landlord provided a formal response to the complaint at stage 2 of its process on 2 February 2023. It explained:
1. Its position regarding the leaseholder meetings, which was as stated in the email on 22 December 2022 and assured the representative that all meeting dates and venues would be publicised once known.
2. It acknowledged receipt of the representative’s questions regarding the painting contract and confirmed that it had emailed the answers to him on 29 January 2023. It also confirmed that it had sent him a copy of the building insurance tender on 23 January 2023. This Service has seen a copy of the insurance tender.
3. That it had provided the contact details for the board members who were available to be contacted and confirmed that they had received his emails.

Post internal complaints process

The representative contacted this Service to express his continued disappointment with the landlord’s response. He maintained that he wanted the landlord to arrange a leaseholder meeting as soon as possible, he wanted a copy of the building insurance contract and not just a summary, and he wanted the remaining contact details for the board members.
The landlord provided this Service with evidence of further meetings that took place in the spring of 2023 regarding the options available for engaging with leaseholders. The landlord has explained to this Service that it does not intend to have a leasehold specific forum but there is a scrutiny panel, which would provide adequate diligence to look at issue affecting leaseholders and tenants. It added that leaseholders can attend local tenant and resident groups.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s policies and obligations

As set out in section 30A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 a leaseholder has the right to request a written summary of the insurance cover. The landlord is allowed 21 days from receiving the notice in which to provide the summary.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires that a leaseholder must be consulted before a landlord carries out works above a certain value or enters into a long-term agreement for the provision of service. Where a landlord proposes to enter into an agreement for the provision of works and/or services for a period of more than 12 months, and the cost to any individual leaseholder under the agreement will be £100 a year or more, it must consult before proceeding. The consultation period should be at least 30 days from the date of the notice.
According to the complaints policy in force at the time of the complaint. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its policy states that it will acknowledge stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. It aims to and respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days from the date it was received and to a stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of it being received.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the grounds and basis upon which compensation may be awarded in relation to service failure and statutory obligation. It explains that where the landlord fails to meet a service standard or where it provides incorrect information it will apologise and do its best to put things right. In addition, if a complainant has been inconvenienced or if the landlord has taken an excessive time to rectify an issue, it may award monetary compensation.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s request for leaseholder forum meetings to be reinstated.

The resident’s representative first enquired about the leaseholder forum meetings on 29 April 2022. The landlord’s initial response was brief and advised the representative that an update would be provided once known. Its subsequent responses went into greater details explaining the reasons the meetings had stopped and that the landlord was considering future options for the meetings.
The representative was not satisfied with the landlord’s responses, and it is clear from his correspondence that the lack of a leaseholder forum was a source of frustration. The landlord responded to his concerns in its stage 1 response, and in the Ombudsman’s, opinion provided legitimate reasons for its continued suspension.
The landlord provided the representative with updates when known and explained the actions it was taking.
The Ombudsman’s role is to examine the reasonableness of a landlord’s actions and decisions in the circumstances of a complaint. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. It is not for this Service to compel a landlord to carry out a function that it is not obligated to do.
It was reasonable for the landlord to pause the meetings during the pandemic and reasonable for the landlord to consider its viability before recommencing the meetings. Social landlords have limited budgets and are expected to use resources effectively for the benefit of all residents. The landlord demonstrated that it listened to the representative’s concerns and provided appropriate correspondence explaining the actions it was taking. The Ombudsman accepts that there was a delay in the landlord advising the resident of its ongoing decision-making regarding a new leaseholder engagement strategy and that this caused the resident some frustration. However, on balance there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for leaseholder forum meetings to be reinstated.

The landlord’s delay in providing copies of building insurance policy and painting contract.

The representative first wrote to the landlord in respect of the building insurance and painting contracts on 26 September 2022. He clearly set out his desire to view the contracts and asked the landlord to provide a date, location, and time that he could inspect them. It took the landlord until 14 October 2022 to respond to the representative. In its response the landlord referred to consultation and stated that it could extend the consultation period to allow for the resident to inspect the policies.
In its stage 1 response on 27 September 2022, the landlord explained that it did not uphold the complaint about the failure to provide the 2 policies requested as it had responded to the resident within 21 days, and consequently had provided an in-time response. It added that it was collating the documentation, and it would contact both the resident and the representative to arrange a date to view the documents.
The representative contacted the landlord again on 5 further occasions at weekly intervals during November and December 2022 with a request to inspect the policies. Evidence showed that the landlord replied to the representative once during this period. Its response implied that it would provide the policies before the end of November 2022.
It is clear from evidence provided that there were ongoing internal discussions regarding the requirement to provide copies of the policies requested. It is also clear that there appeared to be some confusion regarding the landlord’s obligations.
The representatives request to view the building insurance and painting contracts appear to stem from a letter the landlord sent on 15 September 2022. This Service has not seen a copy of the original letter sent by the landlord on 15 September 2022 and consequently it is not clear if the letter was the landlord’s notice for consultation prior to entering into an agreement for the provision of works or services. Regardless of the reason for the landlord’s correspondence on 15 September 2022, the representative, on behalf of the resident, asked to see copies of the painting policy and building insurance policy.
As set out in section 30a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has 21 days to comply with a resident’s request to view the insurance policy. It took the landlord until 22 December 2022 to provide a copy of the painting contract and until 27 January 2023 to provide a copy of the tender for the building insurance. This was 70 working days and 93 working days following the request.It is not acceptable that it took the landlord 93 working days to provide a copy of the insurance tender. It is also not clear to this Service if the landlord has provided a summary of the insurance policy.
This Service acknowledges that section 30A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 only applies to insurance policies. Nevertheless, the representative, on behalf of the resident, also requested to view a copy of the painting contract. The representative was clear in his communication that the resident was willing to view the document at a mutually agreeable time and location. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord provided an update on its actions as part of its stage 1 response. However, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that 70 working days to provide a copy of the painting contract is excessive and unreasonable. The Ombudsman finds a service failure in the landlord’s delay in providing copies of building insurance policy and painting contract.

The landlord’s delay in providing contact details for board members.

The resident’s representative first contacted the landlord to request board member details on 9 May 2022. The landlord responded providing the leasehold team’s contact details.
On 12 October 2022 the representative asked the landlord for the contact details for the members of the tenant’s board. In its response, approximately a week later, the landlord explained that it could not provide personal contact details for tenant board members but that it would ask the chair of the board to contact him. The landlord extended its offer suggesting that the representative could send his correspondence to the landlord who would then forward it to the appropriate board members. The landlord assured the representative that his correspondence would remain confidential and would not be viewed by the landlord. This was a reasonable response, the landlord explained to the representative that it could not give out personal contact details and offered an adequate resolution.
The landlord explained its decision further in its stage 1 response. Nevertheless, despite its initial hesitancy, sometime between the landlord’s stage 1 response and 22 December 2022 it did provide the contact details for the tenant board members.
This Service is satisfied that the landlord’s initial hesitancy was reasonable. We acknowledge that it then reversed its decision and provided the details. While the reasons for the landlord’s change is decision is not clear to this Service, we are satisfied that it did respond reasonably and therefore find reasonable redress in the landlord’s delay in providing contact details for board members.

The landlord’s complaint handling

Evidence showed that the resident’s representative had been in communication with the landlord in respect of the leaseholder meetings since at least 29 April 2022. It also showed that the landlord had provided information in relation to the meetings on at least 3 occasions between that date and 12 September 2022 when he submitted a complaint via the landlord’s online complaint form. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord acknowledged this complaint within the 5 working days prescribed within its policy. While it was appropriate and good practice for the landlord to provide an online channel for the resident to submit a complaint, it was not appropriate that the landlord ignored this complaint. The landlord is reminded that where it decides not to accept a complaint it must provide a detailed explanation, clearly setting out the reasons why the matter complained about is not suitable to be considered through its complaint’s process.
The resident contacted the landlord on again on 27 September 2022 to explain that he had submitted a complaint via the online form but had not received an acknowledgement or response.
The evidence showed that the landlord and representative had a telephone conversation on 10 October 2022, following which the representative emailed the resident with the full details of the complaint. However, due to an error with the email address the landlord did not receive the email until 19 October 2022. The landlord provided a full response to the complaint on 27 October 2022, which was 33 working days after the representative first submitted the online complaint, and 14 working days after his telephone conversation with the landlord. The landlord’s complaints policy is clear that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of it being received. By failing toe respond within the timescales prescribed, the landlord failed in its policy position. It is clear that the delay in acknowledging and responding to the stage 1 complaint exacerbated the resident’s frustration and feeling of being ignored.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord provided a full response to issues complained about clearly setting out where the complaint had been upheld or not upheld and how to escalate the matter further. The landlord acknowledged that it failed to provide a timely response at stage 1 and apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord accepted that elements of its service had failed, however it did not offer any discretionary compensation. The landlord’s compensation policy is clear that where it has failed to meet a service standard it can offer compensation, especially where the complainant has been particularly inconvenienced. The Ombudsman is of the opinion that the landlord should have offered discretionary compensation in line with its policy for the inconvenience caused and the time and trouble chasing a response to the complaint.
While it is noted that in his email to the landlord on 25 November 2022 the representative stated that he did not feel escalating the complaint would be of benefit. The landlord should have noted the resident’s dissatisfaction and at the very least explained the complaints process to him and his representative, so that the resident would not be at a disadvantage especially since he had made it clear that he was escalating the complaint to the Ombudsman. It was not acceptable that the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s continued dissatisfaction.
Nevertheless, the landlord has provided this Service with evidence that between 25 November 2022 and 21 December 2022 it continued to seek a resolution to the complaint. This was appropriate and reasonable. It was right that the landlord continued to work through the issues complained about, in an attempt to provide a resolution.
Following contact with this Service the representative submitted a stage 2 complaint on 22 December 2022. The landlord confirmed the issues complained about on the same day and formally acknowledged the complaint on 6 January 2023, which was 9 working days after it was submitted. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord provided the representative with an informal response to the points he raised. However, notwithstanding the Christmas holiday period, the landlord should have ensured the complaint was acknowledged within the timescale set out in its policy.
The landlord formally responded to the escalated complaint on 2 February 2023, and while the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is the date it told the representative it would respond, it must not go unnoticed that this was 28 days after it received the escalated complaint. The landlord’s policy is clear that it will provide a formal response to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of it being received. The landlord failed to apply its own policy principle and therefore failed in its service provision.
The stage 2 response was clear and responded to all points raised, it set out the action it had taken and what it would continue to do. This was appropriate and reasonable and demonstrated that it was willing to find an agreeable resolution. However, the information it provided in respect of waiting 8 weeks to refer the complaint to the Ombudsman was incorrect and could have caused the resident to be at a disadvantage. The landlord is reminded to ensure that it provides correct and up to date information to its resident’s. An appropriate order will be made in respect of this.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord’s complaint responses were mostly appropriate, the delay in providing the responses must not go unnoticed. In addition the landlord provided the resident with incorrect information in respect of the democratic filter. Consequently, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for leaseholder forum meetings to be reinstated.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s delay in providing copies of building insurance policy and painting contract.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s delay in providing contact details for board members.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing ombudsman Scheme there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s request, and it provided updates when available. It was reasonable for the landlord to review the approach to the meetings and reasonable for it to decide not to reinstate them. The landlord has provided information showing that leaseholders can attend its scrutiny panel.
The delay in providing the information requested was excessive.
While there was a delay in providing the information requested, in the opinion of the Ombudsman it was legitimate. Furthermore, the landlord demonstrated that it offered a reasonable solution.
While the landlord provided full responses to each of the issues complained about, it failed to do so within the timescales prescribed in its policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks to the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for failures highlighted in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £100. The compensation must be paid directly and not offset against any arrears:
  1. £50 for the delay in providing responses to complaints at stage 1 and stage 2 of its process.
  2. £50 for the delay in providing the policy and contract requested. The compensation is in line with the landlord’s discretionary compensation policy.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide refresher training to staff on the requirements of its complaints policy and the new Complaint Code, including but not limited to:
1. The timelines for acknowledging and responding to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
2. The requirement to provide specific information to residents in writing at the completion of each stage.
3. What constitutes a complaint resolution.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to the Ombudsman within the timescales detailed above.

Recommendations

Contact the resident with the details of the scrutiny panels that both he and/or his representative may attend.