Southern Housing Group Limited (202107232)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107232

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 July 2022

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s attempt to sell his property;
2. the resident’s fire safety concerns;
3. its buy back of the resident’s property;
4. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of the property, holding a lease dated 26 January 2018. The property is a one-bedroom sixth floor flat within a ten-storey block.
During the course of this complaint, the resident advised the landlord of mental health concerns such as post-traumatic stress disorder and that he was on anti-depressants.
The lease agreement obliged the landlord to maintain the load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building. It added that the leaseholder could assign or transfer the lease with the consent of the landlord.
The landlord has a fire safety policy that shows that it will meet its fire safety obligations by briefing residents about evacuation procedures and maintaining accurate asset information.
The government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. The advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) and set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
In December 2019, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association (BSA) and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 metres (six storeys). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
The government consolidated ‘Advice Note 14’ when it issued ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’ (BSA) in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance stated that ‘for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act’ and paragraph 1.5 stated that ‘the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height’.
In response to the guidance, some lenders took the view that, if certification could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a zero valuation.
The landlord’s website has a section on building safety that shows that it has ‘an ongoing programme in place to check our buildings and carry out any work required to ensure that our buildings comply with government guidance and, for our tall buildings, to provide an EWS1 form for each’.
The landlord has a shared ownership buy back policy that was introduced from July 2020. It sets out that it will not generally agree to buy back a property but will consider this ‘in very limited circumstances’. It mentions a shared owner not being able to sell their property due to fire safety certification difficulties as being a circumstance that will be taken into account and that ‘legal fees and administrative fees’ will be payable by the shared owner unless it is an exceptional case.
The landlord had a complaints policy that set out a two-stage complaints process with responses required within 10 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two). It noted that personal injury claims would not be considered through its complaints process.
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows for payments to be made where its service has fallen below an acceptable standard. Its related compensation framework shows that it will ‘take into account the severity of the issue and any vulnerabilities of the people affected’.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show that the resident’s property was initially marketed for sale through its own re-sale process with the resident entering into a nomination period of eight weeks on 8 September 2019.
The landlord issued a resident update notice on 25 October 2019 that advised that it may need to carry out remedial works to external render and insulation of the block and, in the meantime, there was now an evacuation policy for the block and two fire wardens would patrol it.
The landlord offered a further update notice on 31 October 2019 that confirmed it had fire risk assessment recommendations, including ‘replacing and repairs to some fire doors and works to the communal service cupboards’.
The landlord obtained an architect’s report on 4 November 2019, following a site visit that day. It found that:
1. the building was over 18 metres high
2. the ‘expanded polystyrene render system’ was a combustible material
3. no fire breaks were found in inspection holes opened between the first-second and third-fourth floors.
The landlord also obtained a technical note from a fire engineer who attended with the architect on 4 November 2019. This found that:
1. of the three locations tested, ‘a mineral wool fire barrier was found only in one location, this being the compartment floor between seventh and eight storeys of the building’ albeit it could ‘not completely rule out the possibility that the fire barrier may have been present’ in the other two locations
2. ‘the thermal insulation material and the render are both combustible materials and are not, therefore, materials of limited combustibility’
3. the external wall insulation (EWI) system should be removed and replaced with one that met current building requirements
4. it was told that ‘the evacuation strategy has been changed to one of simultaneous evacuation and that a waking watch has been provided in order to assist with the detection and evacuation in the event of a fire in the building’.
The landlord’s records show that a memorandum of sale was issued to all parties on 6 November 2019 for the sale of the resident’s property to a prospective buyer.
The landlord advised the resident on 18 November 2019 that the prospective buyer’s lender had asked for further information about cladding on the block and it would arrange for a response to be sent.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 December 2019, asking what information had now been passed to the buyer and his lender.
The landlord issued an update notice to residents on 6 December 2019 that advised that it was working with experts to put together a detailed programme of safety works that would be shared and that the fire wardens would remain.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 December 2019, advising that specialist contractors had been appointed and a programme of works should be provided early the following year.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 December 2019. He raised concerns that:
1. the prospective buyer of his property had not received a mortgage offer from their lender due to reservations about cladding on the block
2. residents were concerned that the landlord was fully aware of the cladding material and the building design risks but that it was not being honest
3. he needed a date on which a survey would be done to allow for an EWS1 form to be passed to the buyer’s lender
4. there was a delay from 18 November 2019 in the landlord responding to the buyer’s mortgage broker (until it wrote to them on 4 December 2019 confirming its interim safety measures and the plan to obtain surveyor reports that showed what remedial works were needed)
5. there could be faults on washing machines in the block that made fire more likely and he wanted reassurance that it had applied for government funding.
The landlord sent a stage one complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 23 December 2019. It noted that the complaint was relating to concerns about the attempted sale of the resident’s property and block cladding.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 January 2020, advising he would ‘respond in due course’ and requested that ‘no further action is taken with the complaint until instructed’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 January 2020, advising it would close the complaint on 17 January 2020, pending any further contact from him.
The landlord issued a notice to residents on 30 January 2020 that advised that ‘the exterior rendering and the existing insulation of the building needs to be removed and replaced with insulation and render that fully complies with current standards’. It added that it was looking to start the works in late summer and was considering funding options. It noted that the fire brigade and local authority were satisfied with its safety measures in the meantime.
The landlord issued an updated resident notice on 19 March 2020 that set out the likely timescales between late April 2020 and mid-September 2020 for preparatory work (such as planning, permissions and tendering) that was required in advance of remedial works commencing at the block.
The landlord issued another resident notice on 3 April 2020 that was intended to address how the Covid-19 pandemic may impact the block remedial works plan. It noted that the fire wardens would remain in place.
The landlord issued a further resident notice on 22 April 2020 that referred to an incident where an alarm went off on 19 April 2020. It advised that the fire brigade found the evacuation had been smooth and it gave information about the role of the fire wardens and offered assurance that no faults with alarms had been reported.
The landlord issued a resident notice on 7 May 2020, advising that emergency lighting works would be carried out by its fire contractor during 13-15 May 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 June 2020. He asked if there was a buyer still available and queried why his property no longer appeared on the sales listings on its website.
The landlord’s internal emails on 4 June 2020 show that it was aware that the prospective buyer had pulled out of the purchase on 11 May 2020 and that it thought solicitors were going to inform the resident. It noted that it should have written to the resident to advise him he could sell his property on the open market but this was overlooked.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 June 2020. It advised that this was in response to correspondence from him during late May to early June 2020. It expressed sympathy for the frustrating situation he was in and said that it wished to support the resident during a difficult time. It explained that:
1. building safety work at the block was complex, it was working with external authorities and it signposted the resident to its website and regular updates it was offering
2. technical queries had been passed to colleagues for answers so the legal matters raised by the resident had been passed to its solicitors and the head of its sales service would be in touch about his individual sale
3. it proposed other options such as ‘permission to sub-let or an agreement to buy back’ which it would be happy to discuss with him given sales were being delayed
4. it did not have a final answer on the funding for building works but was considering all options
5. it had made a request for the fire safety actions timelines to be added to its website
6. in the meantime, it had liaised with the fire service and introduced a 24-hour waking watch to keep the building safe.
The landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident on 10 June 2020. They advised that they did not consider the matter to be part of the pre-action protocol but that it was addressing some of the technical issues raised. They rejected the resident’s allegations that the landlord was in breach of various legal obligations and advised that it was awaiting the building insurance certificate so it could pass this on.
The landlord issued an updated notice to residents on 15 June 2020 that showed that it had ‘received a technical specification which contains a number of options for what we can do and how we could carry out the programme of work’ and that it did not intend to re-charge leaseholders for this work. It added that ‘specialist contractors will carry out the full measured survey and prepare to apply for planning permission’.
The landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident on 27 July 2020. They confirmed the landlord did not accept allegations contained in letters from the resident that month and that the insurance policy document had been offered.
The landlord responded to the resident on 6 August 2020. It said that this was in response to a letter from him of 27 July 2020 and was from the customer relations team manager responsible for complaints. It advised that:
1. it received a letter of 19 December 2019 which it noted was acknowledged on 21 December 2019 and 23 December 2019 but no response was sent because the resident asked it not to take any further action on 6 January 2020 and it told the resident on 13 January 2020 that it would close the case
2. a further letter was submitted by the resident on 3 February 2020 but an oversight on its part meant that it did not pass this to its customer relations team so it was not considered through that process for which an apology was offered
3. it would provide feedback to executive directors that all complaints should be logged by its customer relations team and assured the resident that it had procedures to ensure complaints about senior members of staff could be investigated
4. it would now prefer to deal with the complaint at stage one of its process but it would escalate the complaint directly to stage two if that was the resident’s preference
5. it asked the resident to confirm his preferred option and explain what his remaining concerns were
6. it noted that a buy back option had been proposed to him and there was a member of staff he could communicate with on that matter.
The landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident on 10 August 2020. They queried why the resident thought the building insurance documents did not comply with the lease.
The landlord’s solicitor wrote to the resident on 24 August 2020. They advised that they had enclosed building insurance documentation and explained that they were instructed that a lead insurer had provided cover for 100% of the development as of 25 June 2020.
The landlord issued a resident notice on 26 August 2020 that said a fire alarm test was planned for 7 September 2020 and that it had found some fire doors at the block needed replacing so it would share its plans on this.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 September 2020. He confirmed his interest in the buy back and alternative options the landlord had presented but raised multiple concerns about information he had received through a subject access request, including:
1. it delaying by two weeks in providing a copy of a fire engineer’s report dated 9 March 2020 and not forwarding two previous reports to him
2. its handling of a data breach and staff ‘hiding behind job titles’
3. the lack of compensation for anxiety caused by its silence during January-July 2020 when he was attempting to sell the property
4. the handling of his complaint and whether lessons had been learned
5. the lack of information landlord staff were able to obtain from colleagues
6. disrespectful language used about him by staff members and his exclusion from welfare visits planned in February 2020
7. whether the building was sufficiently insured
8. smoking in communal areas and use of cannabis in the block (including by fire wardens)
9. a quiet fire alarm, a lack of notice of an alarm test in June 2020 and the need to follow up on a fire risk assessment from May 2020 (and complete an urgent type 4 assessment)
10. the landlord being in breach of the lease since October 2019 and lobbying the local authority to avoid its housing standards department taking enforcement action.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2020. The landlord replied on 18 November 2020, advising that it had used its discretion to agree a buy back with no cost implications to the resident as it thought this was in his best interests and would forego deducting any arrears from the agreed price. The resident confirmed on the same day that he wished to proceed.
The landlord wrote to all residents on 26 November 2020, advising the car park would be closed as contractors would be on site in December 2020 to commence remedial safety work. A separate resident notice showed that the landlord expected scaffolding and enabling work to take 8-10 weeks, after which more visible works to the external wall of the building would occur.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2020 to advise that it needed a new valuation of the property to complete the buy back so offered a surveyor to attend on 4 December 2020. The landlord advised the resident on 9 December 2020 that it had received a property valuation of £230,000 and asked the resident if he wished to proceed on this basis. The valuation report assumed that the external wall systems were compliant with regulations as per Advice Note 14.
The resident accepted the valuation figure on 9 December 2020. Following further correspondence between the landlord, the resident and solicitors, the buy back of the property was completed on 28 January 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 December 2020, confirming the ‘waking watch’ and evacuation strategy pending remedial works to the block. It added that a ‘type 4’ fire risk assessment was not presently necessary but it would be undertaken once it was on site to carry out the external wall works.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 21 June 2021. He noted that although the buy back transaction had been completed, he was dissatisfied on the grounds that:
1. it had maladministered his initial attempt to make a complaint
2. it had not answered the points of concern raised in his letter of 25 September 2020
3. it had violated his human rights by allowing him to live in a dangerous property
4. he was due to complete a purchase of a bungalow in March-April 2020 but the landlord’s lack of communication prevented this
5. it breached fire safety regulations as it learned that there was no compartmentalisation but failed to take any action, failed to undertake a type 4 risk assessment even after being aware of the lack of compartmentalisation to the first floor and overlooked his reports that the sixth floor alarm was too quiet
6. he was seeking an apology, an acknowledgement and explanation of its failings and lack of oversight and compensation for distress caused.

The landlord acknowledged this correspondence the following day, advising it would investigate and offer a progress update in two weeks. It added that it would not be able to consider the personal injury claim through the complaint review.

The resident wrote again to the landlord on 23 June 2021 – he raised the following points:
1. he had been liaising with it since February 2020 about the sale of his flat but it later went silent on this and the only information he received was about building safety
2. it had acknowledged in August 2020 that it had not dealt with his complaint appropriately and he asked how it had come to close his complaint
3. he had decided to put the landlord under intense pressure following a fire incident at the block in April 2020
4. he thought compensation was due for mishandling of the complaint, its decision to exclude him from welfare visits it conducted to the block and its failure to offer the buy-back option before April 2020 which left him and his wife exposed to the fire
5. he was unsure why it had offered a progress update in two weeks given a full response was required within 10 days and he asked to know under what process the complaint was being considered.
The landlord replied to the resident on 25 June 2021. It advised that it was dealing with his complaint at the final stage of its complaints process and confirmed the points it was investigating. It said that a full response would be offered by 23 July 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 June 2021. He disputed that he had received a stage one complaint response in the past, queried under what policy his complaint was being handled and reiterated the points of his complaint.
The landlord replied to the resident on 1 July 2021. It confirmed the executive director who would respond to the complaint and added that:
1. the complaint was opened in December 2019 and then closed due to a lack of contact
2. the complaint was re-opened and a letter was sent in August 2020, setting out how the matter would be progressed but it was closed again because it did not hear back again until June 2021
3. it escalated the complaint to the final stage given the resident was no longer at the property and there had been a 10-month gap in communications.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 July 2021, advising that he found its previous correspondence provocative and noting it had not shown that he had received a stage one complaint response. He listed a large quantity of correspondence he had with it between August 2020 and January 2021 which he said were all linked to his complaint and he expressed his preference for the complaint to be considered at stage one as some issues may be resolvable at this stage.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 July 2021. It apologised if the resident found its previous email provocative and confirmed that his feedback about the complaint handling was being considered through the current investigation. It noted the points of the original complaint but that the situation was now different given the property buy back was completed as an offer of redress.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 23 July 2021. It said it had dealt with the complaint under the policy that came into effect on 31 December 2020 and it concluded that:
1. there was no maladministration in its complaint handling as it:
  1. closed the original complaint (of 23 December 2019) in January 2020 after the resident’s request of 6 January 2020
  2. responded to his February 2020 correspondence by writing to all residents on 26 February 2020
2. the issues at the resident’s block were complex but it was of the view it had communicated regularly with him to advise how it was progressing remedial works while keeping the building safe in the meantime
3. it developed a buy back policy (which was approved in July 2020) due to the difficulty residents were experiencing with the evolving requirements of lenders
4. it did not believe it had breached fire safety regulations and had worked with relevant external authorities to get work done in a timely manner and liaise with its residents
5. it could not comment on alleged human rights violations but any specific claim would be forwarded to its legal team
6. it apologised for anxiety caused to the resident while he attempted to sell the property and expressed relief that it had managed to help him finalise a sale and move
7. it said it had not deliberately overlooked any points raised by the resident but had attempted to address his breadth of concerns and that it attempts to improve its services through learning from complaints.
The resident wrote to this Service on 23 August 2021, advising that he had received the final complaint response but he considered it inadequate with many unanswered questions.

Assessment and findings

Property sale

The resident was in process of selling his property through the landlord’s re-sale process when the EWS1 form was introduced in December 2019. At this point, a memorandum of sale had already been issued but the prospective buyer’s lender had requested further information about the block cladding. The landlord provided information to the prospective buyer accordingly in early December 2019 and updated the resident to this effect. It was reasonable for the landlord to liaise directly with the buyer in response to concerns his lender had raised about the external wall system.
Although the resident was subsequently dissatisfied that it had taken more than two weeks to provide that information, the landlord was under no obligation to respond sooner than this and the information it offered was consistent with the update it gave to all residents in the block in early December 2019.
There is no evidence that either the prospective buyer or the resident chased any further information about the sale between January 2020 and May 2020, when the landlord later noted that the buyer had withdrawn – there was therefore no service failure on the part of the landlord during this period.
However, the landlord noted in June 2020 that it had failed to pro-actively contact the resident to inform him that the buyer had pulled out and that he could now look to sell the property on the open market. Although the landlord’s internal emails show that it acknowledged this was an oversight on its part, it did not directly acknowledge this by apologising to the resident or offering any form of redress.
Although the landlord was not at fault for the sale of the resident’s property falling through in May 2020 and began to advise him from June 2020 of alternative options such as a buy back, it was unreasonable that it failed to communicate with him as soon as soon as it was aware that the buyer had pulled out (and the property listing was removed from its re-sale site) and delayed unnecessarily by several weeks in explaining what options he now had to progress a move.
In summary, the landlord responded reasonably to a request from the buyer and his representatives for information about the block during November-December 2019. However, it failed to inform the resident when it became aware in May 2020 that the property sale had fallen through, delayed in offering advice as to how a new sale could be progressed and failed to offer any redress to the resident when it became aware that it had overlooked communicating with him.

Fire safety

The Ombudsman’s guidance note on fire safety and cladding sets out that, as the government’s expectations about this matter are only currently detailed in guidance, there is an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chooses to comply. The Ombudsman’s guidance further advises that, when investigating a complaint relating to fire safety and cladding, the Ombudsman will consider the following points:
1. what are the landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and are these fair and reasonable?
2. how has it communicated with residents regarding the situation and was this communication appropriate?
3. how has it responded to the individual circumstances of the resident?
When the resident initially approached the landlord with safety concerns in December 2019, the government’s ‘Advice Note 14’ applied to the building as this recommended that building checks were conducted to all properties. This meant that the landlord was expected to carry out checks to ensure that the cladding system was safe and to carry out any necessary remedial works.
It is clear from the landlord’s records and copies of notices that were sent to residents of the building that it was taking steps to work towards compliance with the government’s guidance. Surveys of the block were conducted in November 2019 and the landlord offered the following updates up to the resident’s vacation of the property in January 2021:
1. advised in January 2020 that the cladding needed replacement and it had implemented safety measures in the meantime
2. gave four updates during March-April 2020 on timescales for remedial works and safety findings following an incident in April 2020
3. advised in June 2020 that charges for the remedial works would not be passed to the resident (and other shared owners)
4. confirmed in November 2020 that scaffolding would be erected from December 2020 and cladding remedial works would begin a couple of months later.

These actions demonstrated that the landlord took a rational approach to arrange inspections, prioritised the resident’s block appropriately given its height and cladding material, was pro-active in securing funding to make the building safe and updated the resident accordingly.

However, the resident raised further specific safety concerns in his correspondence of 25 September 2020. These included reports of an alarm on his floor that he said was too quiet to wake him, the need for a new invasive fire risk assessment and smoking in the block (including by fire wardens). The landlord eventually informed the resident in December 2020 that a new fire risk assessment was not yet necessary (so would be conducted while cladding remedial works were ongoing the following year) but failed to answer his concerns about smoking and the alarm. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not address these points, particularly given it had determined the EWI system needed replacement and it was aware of the resident’s potential vulnerability due to mental health concerns.
In summary, the landlord’s approach to assess and commence remedial works needed to the resident’s block was appropriate and it maintained regular communications with the resident during 2020. However, it failed to answer specific safety points raised by the resident in September 2020 and some of these questions remained unanswered by the time he vacated the property in January 2021.

Buy back

The resident’s intended sale of his property fell through in May 2020 and the landlord made him aware from June 2020 that there were alternatives such as a buy back of his property for which it introduced a new policy in July 2020. Given it only became apparent from early 2020 that residents were being severely impacted by a developing approach from lenders to give properties a zero valuation for mortgage purposes and the resident was attempting to sell his property up until May 2020, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord in it not proposing the buy back option to the resident before June 2020.
The landlord reiterated the option of a buy back in its August 2020 correspondence and gave the resident a direct contact should he wish to discuss this further. It was reasonable for the landlord to re-present this option given the resident’s continued concerns about the landlord’s handling of fire safety and the distress he reported he had experienced.
The resident stated his wish to progress the buy back option in late September 2020 and the landlord confirmed in November 2020 that it had authorised this and that there would be no cost implication to the resident. Given the landlord’s buy back policy made it clear that that this approach was only considered in limited circumstances and that costs would usually be payable by the shared owner, it was appropriate that the landlord demonstrated it used its discretion to agree the buy back with no costs being passed to the resident.
The landlord advised the resident in late November 2020 that a new valuation of the property was needed and the buy back was completed in late January 2021. Given the requirement for a new valuation and the usual need for exchange of information with solicitors in advance of a property sale, there was no service failure on the part of the landlord during this period.
In summary, it was reasonable for the landlord to signpost the resident to the buy back option during June-August 2020 and it demonstrated that it used its discretion to progress the buy back at no cost to the resident after he confirmed his preference for this in September 2020.

Complaint handling

The resident initially submitted a complaint in late December 2019 which was focused on his attempts to sell the property and his block fire safety concerns. However, after the landlord acknowledged the complaint, he requested on 6 January 2020 that it take no further action until instructed. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord wrote to the resident at this point to advise it would close the complaint.
When the landlord reviewed the resident’s concerns again in August 2020, it noted that it had failed to consider correspondence it received from him in February 2020 through its complaints process as it should have. It apologised for this, advised it had learned lessons from the case (so would brief executive directors of the need to consider such matters through its complaints process in future) and offered to review his concerns as either a stage one or stage two complaint. Although it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and attempt to put this right, when the resident reiterated his concerns from September 2020, it continued to fail to answer him through the complaints process. This meant that it did not answer serious allegations made by the resident about its building insurance arrangements and exclusion of him from its support arrangements for example.
The resident re-approached the landlord with his complaint in June 2021 and the landlord decided to escalate the case to the final stage of its complaints process. Although a landlord may use its discretion to review a complaint in this way should it and the resident agree or if it determines that the substantive matter is serious enough to warrant an immediate senior review, it was unreasonable that the landlord ignored the resident’s preference that it consider the matter through both complaint stages, particularly given it had previously offered the resident a choice on this.
When the landlord did issue its final complaint response in July 2021, it did not revisit the points of concern the resident had raised in September 2020 as he had requested it to do in his June 2021 complaint. The landlord’s failure to provide a stage one complaint response and rights to escalate the complaint meant that the resident lost the opportunity to escalate these remaining concerns for further investigation before the case was brought to this Service.
In summary, the landlord handled the resident’s complaint inappropriately by failing to direct his February 2020 and September 2020 concerns through its complaints process and its decision to immediately escalate the resident’s June 2021 correspondence to its final complaint stage was unreasonable given the circumstances of the case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:
1. the resident’s attempt to sell his property;
2. the resident’s fire safety concerns.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of its buy back of the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in its communications with the resident when it became aware in May 2020 that his property sale had fallen through and, although it subsequently acknowledged this failure in its internal communications, it failed to offer any redress for it.
The landlord did not investigate or answer fire safety concerns raised by the resident in September 2020.
Following the resident’s failed property sale attempt in May 2020, the landlord signposted him appropriately to its new buy back policy and used its discretion to complete the buy back in January 2021 without passing on associated fees to him.
The landlord missed opportunities to re-open the resident’s complaint in February 2020 and September 2020 and did not accommodate his request for it to issue a stage one complaint response when he re-approached it in June 2021.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £600, made up of:
1. £100 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure in its handling of his attempt to sell his property;
2. £250 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him by the service failure in its handling of his fire safety concerns;
3. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him by the service failure in its handling of the related complaint.

The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to review its handling of this case and ensure that:
1. all of its staff are aware of the need to consider complaints through its formal complaints process;
2. it is able to log, investigate and respond to specific fire safety concerns raised by residents living in blocks that are awaiting cladding remedial works.

The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to this recommendation to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.