The Riverside Group Limited (202117523)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117523

The Riverside Group Limited

27 July 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling and communication in relation to fire safety works and the provision of EWS1.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about building security.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about subletting.
4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an increase in electricity charges.
5. The landlord’s handling of the maintenance of communal areas.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a two bedroom flat in a block containing 33 flats across seven storeys. The block is more than 18 meters high.
On 2 February 2023, the Ombudsman determined a complaint brought to this service by a neighbour of the resident. Some of the aspects of the complaint considered during that investigation have also been raised by the resident in this complaint: that is the landlord’s handling of fire safety works, the landlord’s response to reports of problems with the back door at the property and the landlord’s response to concerns about the condition of the communal areas.
The Ombudsman concluded that there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of fire safety works and its response to reports of problems with the back door, primarily because the landlord had not kept the resident up to date in relation to the fire safety works and there were delays in replacing the back door. The Ombudsman also found that the landlord had failed to update the neighbour about the communal works and that it delayed in identifying that the internal decoration works could be carried out before the fire safety works. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to pay the neighbour £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of fire safety works, £450 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in replacing the back door, and £250 for a failure to provide updates about communal works and decoration. (A compensation total of £1000.)
Following this previous determination and prior to this investigation, the landlord offered a payment of £1000 to the resident that has brought this complaint.

Summary of events

On 2 June 2020, the landlord arranged for a specialist surveying team to inspect the building to consider the suitability of products in relation to fire risk. A report was obtained dated 2 July 2020.
On 1 July 2020, the landlord wrote to residents to say that the building materials used on parts of the external walls did not comply with the latest regulatory standards so it needed to prepare a plan for the repair and replacement of these materials. It was also arranging alterations to the existing communal fire detection system and to introduce a new “full evacuation plan” and it had also noted that the automatic opening vent system (set of vents designed to open and clear smoke from communal areas in the event of a fire) were not operating correctly and remedial works were required which would be funded through the sinking fund. It planned to do the ventilation works immediately.
On 4 August 2020, the landlord wrote to residents advising that using communal electricity for their own appliances inside the demise of the properties was misuse and a health and safety risk. It said while nobody had been found misusing the communal electricity supply, it would monitor this closely.
In October 2020, the landlord wrote to residents in the building saying that it was submitting an application for a grant from the Government’s Building Safety Fund, to cover costs of the remedial fire safety works needed to the building. On 28 January 2021, the landlord told residents that its application for a grant had been successful so it could now put in place plans for the works to begin. It would write again with a timescale of when the works would likely start.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord wrote to residents to say it was almost ready to commence with the planned fire risk works and its contractors would be starting on 22 March 2021. Some surveys works were due to be carried out prior to this.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord wrote to residents about fire safety works. It said that surveys would be carried out over the next week and it would continue to provide updates.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord updated residents about fire safety work stating that following the surveys, it was working with fire engineers, local authorities and its contractors making the final preparations to the design for constructions works. It would continue to provide updates.
On 7 June 2021, the landlord wrote to residents of the building addressing various issues:
1. It noted that not all residents were recycling, and there were difficulties managing the bin store due to increased rubbish because of the pandemic.
2. The rear door to the building had been vandalised and was repeatedly being left open. This was a security breach to the entire building. It requested residents only use the door if necessary and ensure it was closed.
3. It had noted that litter was being found frequently in the communal areas. It requested residents dispose of rubbish appropriately.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord made enquiries as to whether it could change the rear door to a fob access door due to it being a security risk. The landlord’s own fire compliance team advised that the door was “not fit for purpose”. It said given the vandalism and report of rough sleepers accessing the building, it did not suggest encouraging resident’s use of the door by fitting a fob or key code but advised replacing it with an outward opening door with a push bar linked to the FAS (fire alarm system). It also noted the incorrect fire signage on the door. The landlord requested a quote for this and raised a job to make the door safe.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord wrote to residents about the contamination of recycling containers. It encouraged residents to recycle by disposing of waste in the correct containers and provided guidance on how to do this.
On 22 July 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord. She complained that she had called the day before and earlier that week and sent two emails previously about an update in relation to the EWS1 form and was promised a call back but it had not happened. No work was happening and the resident wanted to sell her property.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord wrote to residents to update them in relation to the fire safety works. It said that it had had to engage a Fire Engineer Consultant and due to a shortage, appointments and reports were taking longer than unusual. The consultants had carried out intrusive inspections of the building and it had received reports, following which the scope of the work might change which would lead to a revised timetable. Its estimation was that the work would not be completed until the end of the year or early 2022. Until then, it would not be able to issue any EWS1 forms. The process had taken longer than anticipated and had caused delays. It apologised for the inconvenience but said this stage was paramount to ensuring it met all the legal requirements to keep residents safe.
On 29 July 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage one that there had been a lack of communication in relation to the EWS1 form. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a call back request on 16 July 2021 which had not been completed and it apologised for that explaining that it was allocated to someone that was on annual leave. It said it had highlighted the issues with its customer service centre. In terms of communication and time taken in relation to a response about the EWS1 form, the landlord referred to its update letters and said it would continue to issue regular updates and explained that the matter was complex and remedial actions could not be taken quickly due to a shortage of experts in the field.
On 2 August 2021, the resident asked the landlord if there were an updates regarding the EWS1 form.
The landlord and resident corresponded further, during which the resident raised concerns about the condition the communal areas and asked if she could sublet the property if it did not provide the EWS1 in the time she needed it. The landlord confirmed that she could sublet. The landlord explained that it had subletting guidelines she would need to meet and a fee, and provided details of this. EWS1 forms would be provided once the works were complete, likely at the end of the year. It said that the communal areas were due for redecoration in 2019, this was delayed due to the cladding work and were now on the 2022/23 programme. It agreed to clean the communal area.
On 13 August 2021, the resident requested the complaint be escalated to stage two. The resident gave various reasons including the following. She listed some communications which she said had not been responded to dated 16, 25, 29 January 2021 (only one “non-constructive reply received”), 1 February 2021, 20 April 2021, 2 July 2021 and 16 July 2021. She referred to issues with the communal area including holes in the wall, smell from the bin room, unauthorised individuals entering the building making her feel unsafe, no lights in the bin chute room on her floor. She asked why the service charge had gone up and requested a breakdown.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord responded at Stage two of its complaints process. It listed the residents reasons for dissatisfaction with the previous response which also included that the resident wanted the landlord to identify who was misusing the communal electricity supply as she believed they were all being penalised through increase charges.
In relation to subletting guidelines, it had previously confirmed that she was able to sublet and it provided further information should she decide to do so. It confirmed there was a subletting administration fee paid for all leaseholders, which was in accordance with the lease.
The landlord apologised that the resident had not always been responded to as quickly as she should have been. It noted that it had responded in a timely manner since she raised the complaint.
In relation to the communal areas, the landlord noted that it had agreed previously that the standard should have been better and it had requested works to improve them. The redecoration had been delayed due to the cladding works and was scheduled for the 22/23 cyclical works programme, a deep clean of the ground floor had been arranged and it was looking into flooring replacement. It had logged the defective light as an emergency and had logged the defective lock on the meter room. The bin store was cleaned and disinfected weekly.
The landlord provided a breakdown of the service charges. It had written to residents about the misuse of the communal electricity because the charges had fluctuated some months resulting in higher charges and it was exploring reasons for this.
There is evidence that on 25 August 2021, the landlord agreed with the waste collection company that it would lock the bin lids on the recycling container once the refuse was collected to ensure residents started putting recycling and waste in the correct containers.
On 6 September 2021, the resident set out the reasons she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage two complaint response including:
1. She acknowledged that the landlord has sent a update in relation to the fire safety works on 28 July 2021 but said the landlord had not replied to her requests for updates in the past and she had to raise a complaint before she was taken seriously. In response, the landlord accepted that its communication with residents required improvement and referred to difficulties with staff working from home.
2. In relation to subletting, she said she was surprised by the approval process as she had seen many rules being broken by residents in the building. The landlord explained that the lease permits subletting but it has a process to manage the arrangement, but this does not always prevent lease breaches. It said that the Deed of Consent that it signs enables it to challenge and remedy breaches if it is aware of them and it encouraged residents to let it know if there were aware of resident subletting without consent. In response to the specific breaches the resident has referred to, the landlord responded:
  1. In response to her reference to noise from a specific flat, the landlord said action was taken at the time and it was not aware that it was ongoing, but she could report it if it was.
  2. In response to her reference to bikes being stored in the communal areas, it said it was not aware of this but asked her to let it know if she knew who they belonged to. It would also send a general letter to residents.
  3. In response to her reference to unrecognisable individuals smoking near the bin room and setting off the fire alarm, the landlord said it would write to residents to remind them of their obligations and review signage.
  4. In response to her reference to rubbish in the communal area and in the lift, the landlord said that the block had a weekly cleaning schedule so it would be taken up with its cleaning company and it would check the communal areas on 27 September.
  5. The resident had asked if the landlord carried out an audit on all subletting properties. The landlord responded that it did not carry out an audit and relies on leaseholders complying with the lease terms – when it becomes aware of a breach, it will take action.
  6. She noted the proposed works to improve the communal areas but said she would probably have sold her property by then. She said the defective light in the bin chute area had still not been resolved. She also referred to the smell from the bin store. The landlord said the light was chased up and the air freshener was due to be refilled.
  7. In relation to the electricity supply, the resident considered that the misuse of the communal electricity had not been ruled out and it concerned her that the electricity charge had gone from £7.66 to £12.51 since the previous year. This was why she questioned if the service charge was accurate. The landlord responded that if it became aware of any residents misusing the communal electricity, action would be taken. The increase in electricity costs was a result of the requirement for weekly fire alarm testing.
The landlord arranged a carpet clean in the communal areas for 15 Sep 2021. The landlord has also provided evidence that the bin store was also deep cleaned.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord updated the resident that:
1. It was obtaining quotes for a new front and back door with locking mechanisms which would be linked to the fire panel.
2. The issue of the electricity increase had been addressed by letter of 4 August and while a resident had raised the possibility of misuse, it had received no evidence of this. It explained that the rise in energy costs had driven a rise of more than 50% in energy costs over the previous six months. Electricity prices were heavily impacted by rising gas prices which was the most significant driver of the increase in wholesale electricity. Taking this into account with more frequent compliance checks, this would increase the service charge.
3. While it encouraged recycling, it could not enforce this. It had arranged for the bin lids to be locked and spoken to the waste contractors about this. If said if this was still not happening, please let it know.
4. It provided the quote for CCTV installation and said it would circulate the costs to leaseholders to vote on.
5. It had arranged a carpet clean at the building.
On 22 September 2021, the landlord wrote to residents of the block with a quote for CCTV installation giving the residents the opportunity to vote on whether to go ahead with the installation.
Following communication from other residents about subletting, the landlord agreed to contact each leaseholder to confirm if their property was sublet.
On 1 December 2021, the landlord wrote to residents about the fire safety works. It apologised for the delay since the last update. It said that following the survey works earlier that year, it had been engaged in lengthy discussions with fire engineers and local authorities to complete the final preparations to the design for construction works to ensure the works could be delivered as safely and efficiently as possible. It said it was also in the final stages of agreeing a contract of works and it was pleased to say that it would be looking to start construction works in early 2022. It said it would write again before the end of December to provide a more precise start date.
On 2 December 2021, the landlord informed residents that the majority vote was for the installation of CCTV.
There is evidence that in December 2021, the landlord was negotiating with a contractor about the fire safety works and considering whether to revert to a different contractor due to contractual disputes.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord provided an update to a group of residents who had been in contact with the landlord including the resident. It acknowledged that there had been unforeseen delays. It provided an update from the project surveyor in relation to the cladding works stating it was in ongoing communications with various contracting parties to get works on site as soon as is practicable, but it was not able to confirm a start date at the time of writing. It would provide an update letter to residents by 11 February 2022.
The landlord informed residents that internal decorations were planned for 14 February 2022. It said there was a delay to the door replacement due to cladding works.
On 24 February 2022, the landlord updated residents in relation to the fire safety works. It still could not provide a definitive start date. It had to end negotiations with a contractor at a late stage meaning that it had to restart many parts of the process with an alternative contractor. It acknowledged that the preparations had been lengthy.
In September 2022, the residents were reporting the bin store being used by a homeless person, people using drugs outside the building and the back door being left open.
In 2022, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that:
1. In relation to the back door, it had decided to completely renew the door and section 20 consultation on these works would begin the week of 18 April 2022. This was expected to take 70 days.
2. In relation to the cladding work, the landlord provided a timeline of action it had taken and reasons for delays. This included that anomalies within the building meaning that the risks needed to be assessed via a further report and the fire brigade were needed to be consulted. In May 2021, the landlord had spoken to an alternative contractor due to costs requests by first contractor and a new contractor was instructed, but it subsequently reverted to the first contractor due to contractual issues.
3. The landlord also explained that issues were discovered around the supporting structure to the cladding. To establish the scope and extent of the structural framing system behind the cladding it was agreed that a 100% survey would be undertaken. This was likely to start in July 2022 and following the investigation work, it would be necessary to detail and design solutions. It estimated a start date of early 2023.
4. Communal area cleans were carried out weekly by an external company on contract. It carried out a deep clean in response to a complaint and a carpet clean was completed on 14 and 15 September 2021. Internal cyclical painting took place in February/March 2022. It also intended to consult in relation to the replacement of the flooring within the building.
In March 2023, in response to the Ombudsman’s determination to the neighbour’s complaint, the landlord wrote to residents updating them on the fire safety works. It advised that its design team was working on a design solution, there would be a period when the scaffold was erected but no work would take place and it hoped that contractual discussions for the work would be concluded in May 2023.
The landlord has recently updated the Ombudsman stating in summary:
1. It has kept customers up to date recently through the use of a dedicated web page and text message communications. It has provided copies of some updates provided in 2022.
2. It wrote to residents earlier in July 2023 explaining that it was facing two additional challenges. First, while it had previously secured funding from the government, due to a change in policies, it needed to bid for funding from a different funding pot and that application would be submitted shortly but would delay the start of the works.
3. It had also encountered a problem with the extension to the adjoining building which may affect its ability to do work to remove the cladding and it had raised this with the building owner and the City Council.
4. These two issues needed to be resolved before it could start remedial works and the building would be scaffolded for longer. It was arranging a meeting for residents to ask questions.
5. Its recent update letter to residents stated that if a resident was wanted to sell their property, the situation makes it more complicated. It said it holds a B2 EWS1 certificate which lenders may ask for and the remediation plans will be available on the webpage. It said while it cannot guarantee a lender would agree to lend to an individual home buyer because of the factors involved in their decision, it has been advised that most lenders will accept the certificate and remedial proposals to help guide their decision.
6. CCTV has been in operation since July 2022.
7. Work to replace the front and rear access door was due to take place on 17 and 20 July 2023 following a technical issue which prevented the works taking place in June 2023.
8. It had not received any reports of issues with the bin stores since January 2023 in terms of unauthorised access. The main bin store was locked and monitored by 24 hour surveillance.

Assessment and findings

Relevant law and policy

Under the terms of the lease, the landlord is responsible for maintaining, repairing, redecorating and renewing the roof, foundations, main structure of the building and all external and common parts of the building.
The landlord’s repairs policy includes timescales for repairs including within 12 hours for emergency repairs, within 5 days for urgent repairs and within 28 days for routine repairs.
The landlord’s Fires safety management policy states that:
1. The landlord will carry out fire risk assessments in the communal areas of blocks of flats.
2. The landlord will ensure it is compliance with fire safety legislation and keep a register of fire risk assessments.
3. The landlord will identify and deal with any hazards or lack of suitable fire management control found, by taking corrective and remedial actions as appropriate.
4. The landlord will, in accordance with industry guidance, check external wall systems/cladding for any non-confirming materials that are not of limited combustibility and ensure risk mitigation and risk reduction is implemented.
Advice Note 14 was issued by the Government 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). The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
The Government’s guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “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”. Paragraph 1.5 of the guidance notes that “the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height”. This guidance has since been withdrawn.
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 value of £0.
In January 2020, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), The Building Societies Association (BSA), and UK Finance agreed a new industrywide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 meters (six storeys). Form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
On 8 March 2021, RICS issued new guidance (effective from 5 April 2021) in relation to the EWS1, which clarified the criteria for deciding whether an EWS1 was needed.
In January 2023, RICS published further guidance entitled “Valuation approach for properties in multi-storey, multi-occupancy residential buildings with cladding”.
The Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on cladding recommends that landlords:
1. Provide a clear roadmap to outline their long-term compliance plans to all residents, including clear and realistic timescales for action.
2. Be proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every three months even where there is little or no change

The landlord’s handling and communication in relation to fire safety works and the provision of EWS1.

The resident complained that the landlord had failed to respond to multiple attempts she had made to seek an update in relation to the fire safety works and the EWS1. The landlord acknowledged one call back, apologised that the resident had not always been responded to as quickly as she should have been. The landlord also noted that it had responded in a timely manner since she raised the complaint but accepted that its communication with residents required improvement and referred to difficulties with staff working from home.
The Ombudsman’s Disputes Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes
2. Put things right
3. Learn from outcomes
The landlord responded appropriately and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s principles by acknowledging some of its shortcomings in communication and apologising to the resident. However, the landlord’s complaint response would have been more comprehensive if the landlord had investigated the specific instances of communications to which the resident had said she had received no response. The Ombudsman has not been given the evidence of the resident’s earlier communications she refers to having been unanswered, but the landlord’s complaint response would have been more specific to the resident’s concerns if it had covered these in detail. This would also have assisted in it identifying exactly what had gone wrong and therefore any areas in its processes requiring improvement.
In terms of communication about the fire safety works and the EWS1 more generally, the landlord provided some updates to the resident and other residents of the building. It updated the resident in January, April and May 2021. and September 2021, which was appropriate. However, it did not follow up its letter of 1 December 2021 like it said it would, and only provided an update in January 2022 following queries from other residents in the block.
In February 2022, the landlord explained that there were delays due to it needing to appoint a different contractor. The landlord has evidenced that since then it has provided some further updates through its website, including in June, September and December 2022 and that the remedial works have been delayed for varying reasons such as contractual disputes and issues with the specific structure of the building.
It is acknowledged that this work can be complex and there are factors outside of the landlord’s control and the landlord has attempted to provide regular updates, which is appropriate. However, the Ombudsman is concerned that the remedial works have been outstanding for three years with no agreed start date in place and that the resident’s expectations have not been carefully managed throughout this period. She has repeatedly been told that the works were progressing only to then be told that there was no start date and this has caused upset and frustration to multiple residents in the block. The resident had indicated she wanted to sell the property and in this situation the communication and delays have had a further impact on her in delaying her from doing so.
In conclusion, the landlord should have done more to manage the resident’s expectations and therefore limit the impact the delays had on the resident following the formal complaint. This is particularly important where remedial works are affected by multiple delays over such an extended period as in this case.
In response to the Ombudsman’s previous determination in response to a neighbour’s complaint, the landlord has paid the resident £300 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the fire safety works in relation to the resident’s property. This goes some way to address the shortcomings identified in this report and was proportionate financial redress. However, the landlord should have taken action to provide more information and offer appropriate compensation at an earlier stage, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement, therefore the Ombudsman has still made a finding of maladministration. Orders have also been made to address further steps needed to put things right.
The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to complete a review of the management of these works to identify how it can prevent further delays going forward.
The Ombudsman has also noted that there is reference in the evidence to various interim actions which the landlord said should take place while the remedial works are being arranged. This included arranging alterations to the existing communal fire detection system and a repair to the automatic opening ventilation system. The July 2020 report also refers to the need to urgently address the omission of fire stopping in some part of the building. As it is not possible to confirm from the evidence provided whether all of these steps were completed, the Ombudsman has also included an Order to address this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about building security

The resident complained that unauthorised individuals were entering the building making her feel unsafe.
From 5 July 2021, the landlord was aware that the back door was “not fit for purpose” following its own investigation into the issue. The landlord requested a quote for replacing the door at this time. The landlord’s stage two response was therefore reasonable since it has looking into ways to make the building safer at this time. It started to make arrangements to replace the door and also agreed to explore the possibility of installing CCTV, which it subsequently did following a vote by the leaseholders. This was appropriate to address the resident’s concerns. The landlord had already written to leaseholders about the importance of closing the door which was reasonable.
However, the back door had not been replaced at the time of this investigation, two years later. Given that the landlord was aware that the door was not “fit for purpose” – as advised by its own fire compliance team – and given that the resident had informed the landlord of her fears around safety due to the issue with the door leading to the building being insecure, the landlord should have taken steps to ensure the door was replaced more urgently.
On 2 February 2023, the Ombudsman ordered the landlord to replace the door within four weeks. In response, the landlord advised that it had ordered the door following a consultation process in February 2023 but it would likely not be delivered until April 2023. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that this work was booked in for July 2023.
It is acknowledged that there may have been some delays which were outside of the landlord’s control, such as carrying out the consultation process, and waiting for delivery. The landlord has also explained why the decision as to which type of door to order took some time. However, even allowing for this, the time taken to replace the door was unreasonable and the landlord delayed in addressing the resident’s concerns about security. The resident and other residents had raised concerns about unauthorised people entering the building and the impact of this on resident safety. In this context, the landlord should have ensured the door was replaced more urgently. There has been a significant delay in the door replacement which was not replaced in a reasonable time or the time frames within the landlord’s repairs policy.
In response to the Ombudsman’s previous decision in response to the neighbour’s complaint, the landlord has already paid compensation of £450 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s delays in repairing and replacing the back door. This goes some way to address the shortcomings identified in this report and was proportionate financial redress. However, the landlord should have taken action to resolve the situation sooner by both arranging works and offering appropriate compensation at an earlier stage, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. The Ombudsman has therefore made a finding of maladministration and made an Order in relation to the door replacement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about subletting.

Under the terms of the lease, the resident agreed :
1. “not to underlet the whole of the premises save with the landlord’s prior written consent. In the event that the landlord grants prior written consent the landlord will require the leaseholders to comply with subletting procedure which will include inter alia prior approval of the sub tenancy agreement sub tenant and letting agents….” (clause 3(14)); and
2. “On or before the completion of any underletting permitted with the landlord’s prior written consent by virtue of subclause 3(14(b) the leaseholder shall pay the landlord (i) its reasonable administrative costs and expenses….”
In response to the resident’s queries about subletting the property, the landlord acted appropriately in confirming its agreement to subletting by explaining its guidelines and administrative fee in accordance with the lease terms. In doing so, it acted reasonably by providing the relevant information.
The resident also complained that she was surprised by the approval process as she had seen many rules being broken by residents in the building. She referred to various issues she considered were breaches of the lease.
The landlord’s explanations in response to this were also reasonable. It explained that the Deed of Consent that it signs enables it to challenge and remedy breaches if it is aware of them. The landlord explained that it does not audit all subletting properties but when it becomes aware of a breach it will take action. This approach was reasonable given the landlord’s responsibility to manage its resources appropriately.
In response to the resident raising concerns about other types of breaches occurring, the landlord addressed each of them in turn:
1. Advising her to report any ongoing noise nuisance.
2. Agreeing to write to residents and review signage about individuals smoking near the bin room and setting off the fire alarm.
3. Agreeing to raise concerns about cleaning with the cleaning company and to check the communal area.
4. The landlord agreed to chase up a repair to the light in the bin chute area. In response to the resident’s concern about smells from the bin, it noted that the air freshener was due to be refilled.
These were appropriate responses to move forward the breaches the resident was raising. The evidence confirms that the reports of noise nuisance were historic; that the landlord arranged cleaning of the communal areas and arranged the light repair. It is also noted that the landlord subsequently agreed to contact each leaseholder to confirm if their property was sublet. This was appropriate to explore if there were any leaseholders subletting without the landlord’s knowledge given concerns raised by the resident and other residents in the building.
However, as the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence to confirm that all of these issues were appropriately followed up subsequently resolved, the Ombudsman has made a Recommendation that it check this and provide the resident with an opportunity to report any ongoing concerns in these areas.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an increase in electricity charges

The resident raised concerns about the possibility of other residents misusing the communal electricity leading to an increase in communal electricity charges. The landlord explained that it had written to residents about the misuse of the communal electricity because the charges had fluctuated some months resulting in higher charges and it was exploring reasons for this. While the resident’s concerns about misuse were understandable in the situation where the landlord had written to residents about this possibility, it was reasonable that without any specific evidence of this taking place, the landlord could not take further action.
The landlord also provided other possible explanations for the increase in the electricity charge such as the weekly fire alarm testing and an increase in energy costs generally. The landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the electricity charges are based on actual usage therefore without any evidence to show that someone was misusing the communal electricity, the landlord’s responses to this aspect of the complaint were reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the maintenance of communal areas

The resident referred to issues with the communal area including holes in the wall, smell from the bin room, and faulty lights in the bin chute room. She asked why the service charge had gone up and requested a breakdown.
Initially, the landlord said that the redecoration to the communal areas had been delayed due to cladding works and was scheduled for the 22/23 cyclical works programme. However, at a later date following a request from another resident, it agreed to arrange these works given that they were internal and could go ahead without affecting the external fire safety investigations. While the landlord acted appropriately in agreeing to and arranging the internal decoration, the landlord should have identified that it could do this itself at an earlier date.
The landlord acted appropriately in arranging a deep clean of the communal areas, and a carpet clean, which it states took place on 14 and 15 September 2021. The landlord has provided evidence that this took place as well as a deep clean of the bin store. The landlord’s repair records refer to the repair to the light in the bin chute room being completed on 8 September 2021. The internal decoration works were completed in March 2022.
Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately in addressing the specific concerns the resident raised about the communal areas by arranging repairs, cleaning and redecoration, but there was a delay in it arranging the internal redecoration.
In response to the Ombudsman’s previous decision in relation to a neighbour’s complaint about similar issues, the landlord paid compensation of £250 in relation to the way it handled communal redecoration works. This goes some way to address the shortcomings identified in this report and was proportionate financial redress. However, the landlord should have taken action to resolve the situation sooner by both arranging works and offered appropriate compensation at an earlier stage, prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement, therefore the Ombudsman has made a finding of service failure in respect of this aspect of the complaint.
In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident also raised concerns about the service charges for the communal areas and requested a breakdown of the charges. The landlord responded appropriately by providing the requested breakdown of service charges. While it was not specifically addressed by the complaint, any dispute as to the reasonableness of the level of those charges would be more appropriately considered by the First Tier Tribunal Property Chamber.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling and communication in relation to fire safety works and the provision of EWS1.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about building security.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about subletting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about an increase in electricity charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation the landlord’s handling of the maintenance of communal areas.

Reasons

The landlord should have been more proactive in keeping residents informed and up to date and should have done more to both manage the resident’s expectations and limit the particular impact the delays had on her. This is particularly important where remedial works are affected by multiple delays as in this case over such an extended period.
There has been a significant delay in the door replacement which was not replaced in a reasonable time or the time frames within the landlord’s repairs policy.
In response to the resident’s queries about subletting the property, the landlord acted appropriately in confirming its agreement to subletting but explaining its guidelines and administrative fee in accordance with the lease terms. It also provided appropriate responses to address the other concern she raised about possible lease breaches.
The landlord’s explanation in relation to the increase in electricity charges was reasonable since it was based on the evidence available and the actual charges incurred.
Overall, the landlord has acted appropriately in addressing the specific concerns the resident raised about the communal areas by arranging repairs, cleaning and redecoration, but there was a delay in it arranging the internal redecoration.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £1000 already offered if it has not already done so, and write to the resident to apologise for its shortcomings in handling the fire safety works in particularly its communication around this, and its delays in relation to the back door replacement and delays in arranging the communal redecoration.
Within six weeks, the landlord to carry out a review of the handling of the fire safety works and report back to the Ombudsman with an action plan as to how it will manage these works going forward including specifically how it will ensure that further delays are minimised, the works completed as soon as possible and residents will be given detailed regular updates.
Within six weeks, the landlord to provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has completed the interim fire safety measures it identified previously which should be in place/completed until the substantive remedial works are completed (see paragraph 62 above).
The landlord to provide evidence to the Ombudsman within six weeks of this report that the back door has been replaced as previously agreed.

Recommendations

The landlord to check with the resident whether she still has any concerns about breaches of lease that she raised during the complaints process including noise nuisance, smoking near the bin room, and communal cleaning, and to respond to any current issues she raises.