Sanctuary Housing Association (202205675)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205675

Sanctuary Housing Association

31 August 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

  1. The complaint concerns:
  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s application for staircasing.
  2. The landlord’s interpretation of the provisions of the resident’s lease.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof.
  4. The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.  After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

b.  The landlord’s interpretation of the provisions of the resident’s lease

4.  Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaint which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. This Service cannot interpret the terms of a lease and it is not within this Service’s jurisdiction to determine whether the landlord has breached the terms of the lease. These are legal considerations best raised with a court or tribunal.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is the leasehold owner of a shared-ownership property which he purchased in 2013. The resident had a 33% share in the property. The property is a two bed flat on the third floor of a building.

 

  1. The lease agreement obliges the landlord to maintain, repair, redecorate, renew and (in the event in the Landlord’s reasonable opinion such works are required) improve:

a.     The load bearing framework and all other structural parts of the building.

b.     The roof, foundations, joists and external walls of the building.

  1. This information is replicated in the landlord’s ‘home owner’s handbook’ which details that the landlord is “generally responsible for keeping the structure and outside of your home and block in a good state of repair” and which further states that the landlord’s responsibility for repairs will include the roof, outside walls, doors, window sills, window frames and gutters.
  2. The lease agreement contains the following staircasing provisions for residents to acquire a further percentage ownership of the property:

a.     The leaseholder may serve written notice at any time on the landlord stating the percentage of the property he seeks to acquire.

b.     The landlord shall apply to the valuer to determine the market value as at the date of service of the leaseholder’s notice within 14 days of the leaseholder’s notice (or if later, within 14 days of the valuer’s appointment) and shall notify the leaseholder of the amount in writing with 7 days of the determination.

c.      Within 3 months of the valuers determination, the leaseholder may pay for a percentage of the property.

d.     The cost of any determination by the valuer shall be paid by the leaseholder to the landlord on demand.

e.     The decision of the valuer shall be final and binding on the parties to the lease.

  1. The landlord does not have a published Staircasing Policy however it has confirmed that it follows its obligations and responsibilities for staircasing transactions as outlined in the Government’s Capital Funding Guide.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy provides that it will respond to emergency repairs (any repairs necessary to remove a serious threat to the health and safety of the occupier or their home) and make safe the property within 24 hours of receipt of the repair request. A second appointment may be required to complete all remedial works following initial attendance. Appointed repairs are all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required. The landlord states that it aims to complete all appointed repairs within 28 days.
  3. The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days.
  4. The landlord’s ‘compensation guidance’ document states that compensation may be offered in circumstances where a resident is put to time, trouble or inconvenience due to the landlord’s action or inaction and where there have been delays. It can also offer compensation where the resident has been put to additional cost due to the landlord’s action or inaction.

Scope of the investigation

  1. The resident and landlord have provided evidence dating back to 2019 in relation to this matter. This Service notes that the resident has raised this matter with the landlord over a number of years and details of earlier reports have been helpful in providing a clear picture of the history of this complaint to date and the landlord’s interventions. For the purpose of this investigation, however, these previous reports and the landlord’s responses are referenced for contextual purposes only. This is because the Ombudsman is limited to investigating only those issues that have progressed through a landlord’s complaints procedure and then brought to the attention of the Ombudsman within a reasonable timescale. Therefore this investigation will focus on events from October 2021 onwards.
  2. The resident has stated that he has had health problems and suffered financial loss which he attributes to the failure of the landlord to take action in relation to the subject of his complaint in a timely manner. The Ombudsman cannot determine matter such as causation or liability regarding impact on health and wellbeing or award damages for these in the way that the courts or an insurer might. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority or expertise necessary to make such findings, which are matters instead for the court. The resident should obtain independent legal advice should he wish to pursue a claim against the landlord for personal injury. However, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Summary of events

The landlord’s response to the resident’s application for staircasing

  1. The resident contacted the landlord on 12 October 2021 as he wished to sell his share of the flat and he requested that the landlord obtain a valuation. The landlord responded 13 days later to advise of the process of the sale and the documents and information the resident needed to provide.
  2. In accordance with the landlord’s request, the resident obtained a valuation report dated 17 January 2022 and provided it to the landlord. On 26 January 2022 the resident informed the landlord by email that he no longer wished to proceed with the sale but instead sought to purchase an additional share in the property. He enquired as to the other documents he needed to provide in addition to the previously submitted valuation report. The landlord responded on 1 February 2022 that it was making enquiries and would respond to him in due course.
  3. On 7 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident to inform him that as part of the staircasing process and in accordance with the lease, the landlord would need to obtain the valuation and therefore the valuation report obtained by the resident dated 8th January 2022 could not be used. The resident responded the following day to query why his valuation report could not be used. In its response on 15 February 2022, the landlord explained that the property’s valuation had reduced substantially between 2020 and 2022 according to the reports and they needed to investigate why this had happened.
  4. The resident sent the landlord four emails requesting a response in February 2022. On 22 February 2022, the landlord advised the resident that they would revert to him once they had completed their investigation. The resident submitted his completed staircasing valuation instruction form the same day and requested the landlord’s bank details to transfer the valuation fee. Two days later he emailed the landlord to inform it that, in accordance with the lease, he had served notice on 22 February 2022 and that the landlord should obtain a new valuation. The landlord responded the same day that it wished to resolve queries regarding information in the resident’s valuation report of January 2022 before proceeding with any further valuation and that it would update him as soon as it had further details.
  5. The resident sent an email to the landlord on 25 February 2022 stating that he was receiving legal advice on the following issues:

a.     He considered that the landlord had breached the terms of the lease;

b.     The landlord had failed to address water ingress to the building for the previous 20 months with scaffolding erected but no works completed;

c.      Why the landlord felt it necessary to obtain its own valuation report for staircasing.

  1. The landlord responded on the 4 March 2022 reiterating that it was continuing its investigation and signposted the resident to a solicitor for legal advice. It suggested that the resident raise a complaint if he remained dissatisfied and provided details of how to do so.
  2. On 17 March 2022 the resident raised a complaint with the landlord using the details provided by the landlord in its email of 4 March 2022. When no response was forthcoming, on 29 March 2022 the resident sent the complaint to the landlord’s complaints section.
  3. The resident chased the landlord for a response in April and May 2022. The landlord contacted the resident by email on 13 May 2022 to advise that the valuer had been contacted in relation to the valuation of January 2022. The landlord had been informed by the valuer that the works taking place at the property should not significantly impact the service charges and so the valuer had been asked to review his figures to reflect this fact. The resident was informed that the landlord was waiting for a response from the valuer. The resident responded the following day to request a response with updated figures within five working days as the landlord had been investigating the matter for several months.
  4. The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 June 2022 to confirm that it had not accepted the resident’s valuation and that it had “taken time to investigate the validity and impact of the information provided to the valuer to down value the property. We will require a new valuation to be completed as per the terms of the lease.” The landlord added “we await a final confirmation from an internal team regarding the timescale of the works and then will be reverting back to you with a further update and how we will propose to progress any staircasing transaction in line with the terms of your lease.”
  5. When the resident had not received a response by August 2022, he contacted this Service for assistance. This Service contacted the landlord on 11 August and the landlord confirmed that it would issue its response by 24 August 2022.
  6. On 25 August 2022. the landlord sent the resident an email informing him that it was not able to progress his request for staircasing until it had completed its investigation into works being carried out at the property. It said that the repairs to the brickwork had since been completed and the scaffolding removed. It confirmed that it would not be recharging him for the cost of the works in recognition of the time taken to undertake the repairs and its lack of communication with him. It was therefore in a position to proceed with the staircasing and it offered to organise a new valuation with the cost to be met by the landlord.
  7. The resident responded the following day expressing his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response and requesting compensation in view of his increased mortgage costs, rental payments and in recognition of the impact on his health. He informed the landlord that he would be instructing a third- party valuer and going forward would not be engaging with a valuer instructed by the landlord. He also raised other matters in relation to the ongoing issue with water ingress to the property which is considered later in this report.
  8. The resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint three times during September and October 2022. He then contacted this Service on 4 October 2022 to report that had not received the landlord’s stage one response. Following correspondence from this Service, the landlord advised that its email dated 25 August 2022 had been the landlord’s stage one complaint response and that since then the resident had been contacted separately with information about how to escalate his complaint given that this information had not been included in the email correspondence. On 13 October 2022 at the resident’s request, this Service contacted the landlord to request that the complaint be escalated to stage two and requested a response by 11 November 2022.
  9. On 17 October 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to enquire whether he wished to proceed with staircasing. The resident repeated that he would only proceed on the basis that the property valuation he obtained dated January 2022 be used and that he would not accept any valuation obtained by the landlord. In response the landlord informed the resident that it would close his application.
  10. The landlord issued its stage two response on 10 November 2022:

a.     It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint that was raised on 17 March 2022. This was because it had not been logged on their system. 

b.     The resident had raised other complaints in relation to repairs which were being dealt with separately.

c.      The landlord apologised for failing to respond to the resident’s correspondence, for providing inaccurate information about whether a complaint had been received and for not clearly marking correspondence as a complaint response and providing information about how to escalate a complaint.

d.     The landlord’s complaint response on 25 August 2022 stated that the external repairs were due to be completed and the cost would not be passed onto leaseholders. The landlord also offered to arrange and meet the cost of a further valuation. The landlord should have provided a fuller explanation to the resident as to what it proposed to do going forward.

e.     The resident’s correspondence of 25 August 2022 should have been treated as a request to escalate the complaint. The landlord apologised for this error.

f.        The landlord explained that it had not accepted the resident’s valuation as in order for an accurate valuation to be obtained, the valuer would need to have been provided with information in relation to works at the building and evidence of any increase in service charge. Consequently, the landlord did not consider that it had breached the terms of the lease. 

g.     The landlord apologised for its failure in communication with the resident as it had not provided him with a full explanation for the actions it was taking. There was also a failure in its internal communications which had led to delays. 

h.     The landlord concluded that the complaint had not been dealt with in accordance with its policies. It offered £600 in compensation to the resident which comprised of:

i. £400 for service failures in relation to its complaint handling.

ii. £200 for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience in relation to poor communication from the Conveyancing Team and poor internal communication.

iii. It also confirmed its offer to cover the cost of a further valuation.

  1. The resident contacted this Service on 15 November 2022 to express his dissatisfaction with the response and to request that this Service investigate his complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof

  1. On 6 June 2021 the landlord erected scaffolding to the property to investigate reports of repairs to the exterior of the property. Works were raised in July 2021 to repair the roof however there was a delay to the works as the landlord had been incorrectly advised by the contractor that the property was listed and they would need consent in order to proceed.
  2. The resident raised a complaint in September 2021 which the landlord had responded to on 28 February 2022 offering the resident £140 in compensation for inconvenience caused by the delays and further compensation of £656.20 for the internal works. The resident escalated this complaint regarding delays in repairs to address water ingress from external cladding and rendering and the landlord responded on 13 April 2022 offering an increased offer of compensation of £1206.20 (comprising of £806.20 previously offered plus £250 for time and trouble and £150 for delays in resolving the complaint). The resident declined the compensation.

33. The resident had requested to receive details of the estimated costs of scaffolding hire since June 2021 and external building works. In its complaint response, the landlord stated that this was no longer relevant the landlord would cover the costs and would not pass these to the leaseholder. The landlord also confirmed that order had been raised for the render repairs and works were expected to be completed within the next 12 weeks. 

34. On 31 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord’s conveyancing team to report that the water ingress was entering through the second bedroom window of his flat but that the scaffolding had not been erected in front of his window to access the source of the leak.  Therefore as contractors could not access the source of the leak above his window, the repair could not be effective.

35. The resident chased for a response a further three times in June 2022. On 24 June 2022, the landlord told the resident that his request had been passed to the maintenance team and explained that delays were due to a backlog of repairs due to COVID-19. On 27 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it was waiting for an update from the contractor and would respond to him when it received a response. Between July and October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord 13 times for a response.

36. The landlord’s internal correspondence dated August 2022 confirmed that works to repair cracks in brickwork had been undertaken and were now completed with scaffolding removed. The costs for scaffolding and works were to be met by the landlord. 

37. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 August 2022 to advise that the works had not resolved the issue and that there had been water ingress to his property the previous night following heavy rain.

38. During this time, the landlord’s records show that there had been miscommunication with a subcontractor regarding works to the interior of the property. An order for works had then been submitted but its approval was delayed. Reference had been made to the report obtained by a subcontractor in January 2022 outlining internal works to be completed to the resident’s property.

39. On 5 October 2022, the landlord raised a stage one complaint in relation to the resident’s reports regarding the water ingress and advised him that a response would be provided by 17 October 2022.

40. On 13 October 2022, the landlord provided the resident with an interim complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint which, it acknowledged, should have been first raised on 25 August 2022 when the resident reported this issue in complaint correspondence. The landlord confirmed that the repair had first been reported to the landlord in December 2021. There had been delay in the contractor attending to inspect for the works, however it had since received a quote for works which was pending approval and it would contact him within 10 days with an update.

41. The landlord issued its stage one response on 25 November 2022:

a.   The landlord confirmed that the works had started and were ongoing.

b.   The landlord apologised for the delays in the works being undertaken and offered the resident £225 in compensation which comprised of:

i. £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience;

ii. £50 for delays in the contractor attending;

iii. £25 for the failure to forward the complaint to the complaints section.

42        The resident responded the following day that works had not started and were not ongoing. He asked that his complaint be escalated to stage two. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request and confirmed that a response would be provided by 23 December 2022.

  1. On 19 December 2022, the landlord noted that scaffolding had yet to be erected so the complaint response was extended to 19 January 2023. The landlord issued its interim response on 19 December 2022:

a.        It apologised for providing incorrect information in its stage one response that works had commenced when it had not. 

  1. It acknowledged that this had been an ongoing issue which had been dealt with as a previous complaint which was then closed on 26 April 2022.
  2. The resident had contacted the landlord by email on 31 May 2022 to express his misgivings about the proposed works. Regrettably, no action had been taken in response to the resident’s correspondence.
  3. The landlord had raised works to redecorate the interior of the property. However, these had been put on hold on the basis that it would be counter-productive to undertake the works before the roofing works had been completed and the area dried out.
  4. Arrangements had been made for a specialist roofing contractor to investigate the source of the water ingress on 16 November 2022 but as they could not access the roof a quote for scaffolding was raised on 6 December 2022 and this was awaiting approval.
  5. The landlord stated that it would extend the deadline for response a further 20 working days to 19 January 2023.
  1. The works were delayed and the deadline for the complaint response was extended a further two times. On 7 March 2023 the landlord issued its stage two complaint response:

a.     The landlord provided details of the agreed works to the roof and confirmed that the target completion date for the works was 27 March 2023 subject to permitting weather conditions.

b.     The landlord offered a revised offer of compensation of £575 which comprised of:

c.      £225 offered at stage one of the complaints process.

d.     An additional £200 for time trouble and inconvenience.

e.     An additional £75 for the length of time the complaint had been open and extensions applied.

f.        An additional £75 for future impact payment up to 27 March 2023.

  1. The resident replied to the landlord’s complaint response on 17 March 2023 stating that the scaffolding had, once again, been erected in the wrong place and therefore he did not consider that the roof repairs could be undertaken. He asked that his complaint remained open until the matter was resolved. The landlord responded that the works would be undertaken as proposed and if problems persisted, they could be investigated further. It also stated that it would not keep the complaint open pending resolution of the matter.
  2. On 25 April 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it had reopened his complaint pending further investigation as the contractors had failed to complete the required works. It stated that a response would be provided by 23 May 2023, however when works were delayed this was extended to 16 June 2023.
  3. On 16 June 2023 the landlord issued a new stage two complaint response:

a.   It outlined the works that had been undertaken.

b.   In response to the resident’s reports that the scaffolding had not been erected in the correct location, the landlord noted that the contractor offered to return on 3 May 2023 to discuss this with the resident but this had been declined by the resident.

c.   The maintenance surveyor attended the resident’s property on 4 May 2023 and following their visit they contacted the contractors to request photographs of the completed works. During their visit no water ingress was visible, although they noted that it had been a sunny day. They had, however, taken damp meter readings which had indicated that the affected wall was dry.  

d.   The contractors provided photographs of the completed works. They confirmed that they had returned to the property and asked that the resident contact them directly to report any further water ingress. The resident has not contacted them further to this discussion.

e.   Internal redecoration works had been sent to the regional maintenance team to schedule.

f.     The resident was directed to pest control regarding a silverfish infestation he had reported as this remained the leaseholder’s responsibility to address.

g.   Compensation of £1375 was offered which comprised of:

i. £225 offered at stage one of the complaint.

ii. £400 for additional time, trouble, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment of his home.

iii. £200 for the length of time the complaint has been open.

iv. £75 future impact payment up to 27 March 2023.

v. £75 additional future impact payment as work not completed within proposed timeframe.

vi. £400 inconvenience of raising further complaint for the same issue. 

  1. The resident continued to dispute that the works undertaken had been effective in resolving the problem. The surveyor undertook a further inspection with the contractor in July 2023 and confirmed that there were no further leaks and that the works had been completed satisfactorily. He also advised that the resident had not reported any further water ingress since the works were completed by the contractor on 26 May 2023.

 

 

 

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s application for staircasing

49. While the landlord does not have a staircasing policy, it is required to follow the government’s Capital Funding Guide in relation to shared ownership. This states that for the purpose of staircasing, the landlord is required to obtain an official valuation by an independent Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) registered valuer. It further provides that the valuation should be completed within six weeks of the resident notifying their landlord that they wish to proceed. The independent RICS valuation is valid for three months. 

  1. The lease provides that it is the landlord who must apply for a valuation of the property, the cost to be met by the leaseholder. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to refuse to accept the valuation obtained by the resident and to inform the resident that it would need to obtain a new valuation. However, once it received the resident’s application for staircasing on 22 February 2022 it gave conflicting information to him that it was ‘investigating’ the valuation obtained by the resident as to a reduction in its valuation since a previous valuation in 2020. This investigation took six months to complete, after which time it advised the resident that it would obtain a new valuation at its own cost. The guidance states that a valuation should be completed within six weeks.
  1. The landlord’s approach did not follow the guidance. The resident was not informed at this time either that the landlord was obtaining a new valuation or that the landlord was following the dispute process by raising queries with the valuer. There is no evidence that the valuer had reviewed their valuation and provided a re-valuation at any point. Further, the RICS valuation would no longer have been valid after April 2022, in accordance with the lease and the Capital Funding Guide, after which time the landlord would have had to have obtained a new valuation in any case. It is not clear, therefore why the landlord delayed until August 2022 before it notified the resident that a new valuation would need to be obtained. The resident had an expectation that the staircasing procedure would have been completed within a reasonable time of his application and this delay caused detriment to him.
  2. The resident has said that he has incurred further costs because of the landlord’s delays, and that he had missed out on obtaining a favourable mortgage rate. There is an inherent risk in the conveyancing process and the landlord is not responsible for changes in prevailing housing market conditions or of changes in interest rates, both of which, incidentally, can fall to the benefit of the purchaser.
  3. When the resident informed the landlord in October 2022 that hewould not accept any new valuation provided by the landlord and would only consider the valuation that he obtained in January 2022, the landlord was entitled to then close down the application as the resident had indicated that he would not comply with the requirements of the staircasing process. However, the landlord failed to provide an explanation as to why it could not accept the resident’s RICS valuation of January 2022, neither did it give the resident a further opportunity to accept its offer of meeting the costs of a new RICS valuation.
  4. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord’s communication with the resident was lacking. The resident constantly chased for information to be informed that the landlord would respond to him in due course, however no substantive response was forthcoming for six months. The resident was also asked by the landlord not to persistently contact it for updates as it would be in contact with him once it had concluded its investigation. This may have been acceptable if the landlord sought to respond to the resident within days or even weeks, however six months had elapsed before a final response was forthcoming and the resident was entitled to request an update and an explanation for the delays during this time. The resident suffered detriment as he was put to time and trouble in following this up with the landlord and ultimately having to refer the matter to this Service in order to obtain a response. It is also evident that there was poor communication between the landlord’s departments. Information was not shared between the repairs service and the conveyancing team which led to further delays.
  5. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it acknowledged that there had been service failures in relation to its internal communication and its communication with the resident. The landlord offered an apology to the resident as well as compensation of £600, of which £400 was in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and £200 was offered in respect of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. The landlord also offered to cover the cost of any further RICS valuation.
  6. While the landlord had made an offer of redress to the resident which went some way towards putting things right for the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this did not go far enough. Only some of the service failures outlined above were addressed by the landlord in its complaint response. Consequently, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration and orders that the landlord makes an additional payment of £350 in compensation in addition to the £200 previously offered in recognition of delays and the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where there has been an adverse effect on the resident.

 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak

  1. This was first raised with the landlord in December 2021 but despite works being raised, they were either not actioned or the works raised did not resolve the problem. Scaffolding was left in place for over a year and removed before the water ingress issue was addressed. When the works were eventually undertaken to the roof in January 2023, the resident reported that the water ingress was continuing and the repairs had not resolved the problem. It was not then until May 2023 that the landlord’s surveyor revisited this. Works were finally completed in May 2023, when the contractors accessed the roof area above the resident’s flat via scaffolding to an adjacent property.
  2. The landlord has not provided a reasonable explanation as to why it had taken 18 months for the works to be completed. This had caused detriment to the resident as the water ingress from the roof into his property caused damage to his home including damp and mould. Further, the delayed repairs had an impact on his application for staircasing, given the disputed property valuation over the cost of repairs.
  3. The landlord’s communication with the resident was, once again, poor. The resident continued to chase for works to be undertaken with a limited response from the landlord. He raised successive complaints to the landlord in relation to the same issue with works either delayed or works failing to address the issue with water ingress to his flat from the roof.

60. Further, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns with him. For example, the resident made numerous enquiries about the contractor’s costs and stated that the landlord had failed to undertake statutory consultation with the leaseholders prior to these works being commenced. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a satisfactory explanation as to why the statutory consultation process was not required and that it would not be passing the costs for works, inspections and scaffoldings onto the leaseholders.

61. It is evident that there was poor communication between the landlord and its contractors with approval of quotes for works being unreasonably delayed and with incorrect instructions being provided to contractors. Further, the works were poorly planned, with contractors being sourced to undertake internal works to the resident’s property when the roof repairs remained outstanding. The resident was not consulted to determine whether works had been completed satisfactorily. The landlord was either given inaccurate information by contractors that the works had commenced or they were not notified of other matters, such as when scaffolding was being removed. Unrealistic timescales for works were provided to the resident which would have caused frustration to him when these dates were moved back.

62.  It is noted that since repairs were undertaken in May 2023, the landlord’s surveyor had attended the property to undertake a further inspection on two occasions at the resident’s request. The surveyor has confirmed that they are now content that the works have been completed satisfactorily.

63.  In the landlord’s final stage two complaint response dated 16 June 2023 it acknowledged that there had been delays and it offered an apology and an amount of £1375 in compensation (inclusive of £200 in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling which is considered below). The Ombudsman observes that there have been lengthy delays and substantial communication failings in relation to this matter, causing significant detriment to the resident regarding his use and enjoyment of his home. However, it accepts that the landlord has satisfied itself following two inspections by its surveyor, that the works to the roof have now been completed and have resolved the problem. Further, works to address the internal damage have been scheduled and the landlord’s offer of compensation is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where a service failure has had a significant impact on the resident. In view of this and given the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has offered sufficient redress to satisfactorily resolve this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling

64. The resident had raised two separate complaints which were dealt with as such by the landlord. The Ombudsman has identified service failures in how the landlord dealt with both complaints. The Ombudsman’s findings are therefore outlined in relation to each complaint below. 

Complaint one – staircasing application

65.  In accordance with the landlord’s instructions, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord in relation to his staircasing application on 17 March 2022. The landlord did not respond to this complaint in line with its complaints procedure and the resident raised a new complaint with the landlord’s complaints section on 29 March 2023, which following a request from the resident, was acknowledged on 31 March 2023. It took almost five months for the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint, despite the resident chasing for a response on many occasions. This was an unacceptable delay. It was not until this Service intervened that a response was forthcoming in August 2022. However, the response did not comply with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in that it did not clearly state that it was a complaint response, it did not identify the subject matter of the complaint, nor advise the resident of how to escalate his complaint to the next stage. Overall, the landlord’s response was unsatisfactory and inadequate.

66. The resident had responded the following day to express his dissatisfaction with the response and to raise additional issues that he wished to complain about. At this point, the landlord should have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two and raised a new stage one complaint about the repair issues raised. It failed to do so and it was not until the intervention of this Service in August 2022 that it escalated this complaint and the repairs complaint was not raised for a further five weeks.  

67. The landlord’s response at stage two went some way towards addressing the shortcomings of its initial response. It provided an overview of the complaint and acknowledged that there were failings in its communication with the resident.  It also acknowledged that there were delays in its response for which it apologised and offered compensation of £400. However, it failed to identify what it could do going forward to ensure that such service failures were not repeated and therefore did not demonstrate that it had ‘learned from outcomes’.  

Complaint two – the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof

68. The landlord’s response at stage one contained inaccurate information that works had already commenced when this had not happened. It would have been good practice for the landlord to make telephone contact with the resident before issuing its complaint response to satisfy itself the all the points raised were covered and that the resident was content that the works had started. Instead, it issued the response including this information which the resident then disputed. This would have caused further concerns to the resident that due care had not been taken in addressing the issues he had raised.

69. As with the resident’s staircasing complaint, the landlord’s response at stage two was more detailed, including a review of the complaint and acknowledging service failures in both its communication and delays. Where works did not proceed as scheduled, the landlord acted in accordance with its complaints procedure by providing the reasons why the complaint response would be delayed and agreeing a new target date for response. This would have provided reassurance to the resident that matters were in hand.

70. While the landlord had acknowledged shortcomings in its service provision as outlined above and offered an apology, it did not identify lessons learned to ensure that these failures were not repeated going forward. “Learning from outcomes” is a key dispute resolution principle. It involves communicating actions a landlord will take to help prevent a recurrence of service failures going forward. The landlord failed to do so in its complaint responses. For this reason, in relation to both complaints, this Service makes a finding of service failure. However, the landlord has offered the resident an amount of £600 for complaint handling failures in respect of both complaints. In the Ombudsman’s view, this offers adequate financial redress in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the Ombudsman makes no order for further financial compensation.

Determination (decision)

71. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s application for staircasing.

72. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme, the complaint relating to the landlord’s interpretation of the provisions of the resident’s lease is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

73. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof satisfactorily.

74. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling. 

Reasons

75. There were significant delays and communication failures in the staircasing procedure and the landlord failed to comply with guidance. This caused detriment to the resident as his application for staircasing was unnecessarily delayed as a consequence.

76. There were significant service failures in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s roof caused by poor communication and the landlord failing to take ownership of the repairs works. However, the landlord had offered an apology and a level of compensation which was within the range of remedies this Service would award and therefore, in the Ombudsman’s view,  satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

77. While the landlord had acknowledged service failings in its complaint handling and offered compensation, it failed to identify what it would do going forward in relation to its service delivery to prevent similar service failures from happening in the future.

Orders

78. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is to:

a. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures outlined in this report;

b. Pay the resident the amount of £2325 in compensation of which:

i. £1975 is compensation previously offered by the landlord (or evidence of payment if this amount has  already been paid to the resident).  This comprises of:

–  £1375 awarded by the landlord at stage two of the resident’s repairs complaint;

– £600 awarded by the landlord at stage two of the resident’s staircasing complaint;

ii. Pay the resident an additional amount of £350 in compensation in respect of the delays as well as the resident’s distress, inconvenience, time and trouble due to the landlord’s service failures in its handling of the resident’s staircasing application.

79. Should the resident submit a new staircasing application within 12 months of the date of this report, the landlord is to meet the costs of the RICS valuation as previously offered;

80. The landlord is to provide this Service evidence of compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report. 

Recommendations

81. The landlord to consider implementing a staircasing policy and procedure including information about the valuation procedure and the process and timescales for raising a dispute with the valuer.