Southern Housing Group Limited (202205541)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205541

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

27 November 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 concerns:
1. The resident’s allegation that his share in the property was mis-sold due to the defect.
2. The landlord’s handling of remedial works and the resident’s temporary move into alternative accommodation.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s allegation that his share in the property was mis-sold due to the defect.
Within his communication with the landlord the resident said that the landlord knowingly mis-sold him the property as it did not disclose the structural defect and that the landlord should buy back his home as per the lease.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints 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, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”.
The property sales process is a legal and formal one. There are rules and regulations about the information provided to prospective buyers, and solicitors play an important role in advising and guiding their clients in the process. Allegations of impropriety, such as the one made by the resident, is a serious matter, and one which, ultimately, can only be resolved by the courts.
Given the above, in line with paragraph 42(f), this matter is better suited for the courts and will not be part of this investigation.

Background

The resident’s lease started on 26 July 2019. The property is a one-bedroom ground floor flat within a multi-story block.
The property is a new build. The landlord is a housing association and the freeholder of the resident’s block (C).
Apart from the resident’s block, there are 4 other new build blocks in the development, 2 of which were sold by the developer to private owners (blocks A and B) and 3 to the landlord. 2 of these are shared ownership.
Handover of the resident’s block (to the landlord) took place on 12 February 2019.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
Investigations by the developer were carried out from 2019 following residents’ reports of excessive noise and vibration issues which led to the discovery of a defect in all blocks. The landlord’s aftercare team was in communication with residents living in the resident’s block regarding these reports from November 2019 onwards.

Scope of investigation

Within his communication with the landlord, the resident alleged that its refusal to suspend the payment of shared ownership rent during the remedial works amounted to a breach of clause 6.6 of the lease. Whilst this Service is able to consider the landlord’s handling of this concern raised, we are unable to look at the landlord’s interpretation of the lease covenant. This type of dispute is more suited for the First Tier Tribunal who have expertise to rule on such matters. Therefore, this element of the complaint will not be considered in this review.
On 30 January 2022, the resident complained to the landlord regarding the developer using his property as a site office and welfare facility which he stated that he was not informed of or consent to. As this concern was raised after the landlord’s final response and there is no evidence of this complaint exhausting the landlord’s complaints process, this complaint will not be part of this review.

Summary of events

The landlord sent all residents a letter advising of a defect causing excessive vibration and noise transfer which it said the developer was fully committed to rectifying. (This letter was undated. However, the resident’s evidence shows he received on or around 10 November 2020). The landlord stated that the proposed remedial works were extensive but the main scope of the works would involve installing additional steel to the existing framework making it more rigid.
It stated the developer would be asking residents to move out of their home whilst works were taking place. It said work was expected to start in January 2021 and would begin in block A. It would then move onto Block B through to Block E. It told residents it was anticipated that works would take up to 4 months for each block meaning the total programme for all 5 blocks was around 20 months.
The landlord said it had not yet agreed to the developers proposals but was due to meet with the developer in early December 2020 to clarify the work in detail alongside the logistics of the program. Following this it said it would send residents an update.
On 22 November 2020, the resident sent an email to the aftercare team regarding the proposed remedial works asking the landlord to raise questions with the developer (53 questions in total). These included:

Whether compensation would be paid to residents for the significant inconvenience.
If a schedule of works could be provided.
If the flats in their current condition were safe and met building regulations.
If the landlord would buy back flats.
If residents’ building insurance was impacted by issue.
If more details around the decant could be provided.

On 3 January 2021, the resident chased the landlord regarding when an update would be sent to residents. On 4 January 2021, the landlord advised the resident that an update letter would be sent out as soon as possible once it had checked the developer’s proposals.
On 22 January 2021, the landlord’s aftercare team wrote to all residents apologising for the delay in responding. It said the developer had not provided all the information it required to agree to its proposals. However, it told residents that regarding the decant during the works, the developer said it intended to offer the same as it had with their private residents. Its home ownership team contact all resident individually to discuss their private needs. It would meet with this team next week after which it would send an update.
On 5 March 2021, the landlord sent a general update to all residents thanking them for completing questionnaires and providing responses to questions. It confirmed that:
1. The timescales for the works was 22 weeks per block with works due to start at the resident’s block on 27 September 2021.
2. The developer would cover service charges for the period of the decant but rent would still need to be paid.
3. The temporary accommodation/weekly allowance was to ensure there were no additional costs incurred by residents and the developer would also be paying compensation once all works had been completed.
4. The developer had selected a partner organisation to manage the decant as they had the closest serviced apartments with sufficient capacity. It said if there were other serviced apartments in a different area preferred by a resident, the developer would be happy to consider these (subject to availability and cost).
5. The developer had committed to ensuring all reasonable costs were covered. This included extra mileage, travel expenses, cost of changing/cancelling utility and insurance policies. They will also cover all other reasonable and legitimate costs caused as a result of being temporarily relocated.
6. The developer would be providing every household with a full list of remediation works undertaken to their properties once works had been completed.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord issued a general email update to all residents regarding the progress of works to Block A. It stated the developer was on course to complete the works by the end of May 2021 and said it would give a start date for Block B in the next week or 2.
On 28 May 2021, the landlord wrote to the residents advising the works to the resident’s block would commence in January 2022 and that the duration of works would be 26 to 30 weeks. Following the works, it said that all properties would be given a new one year defect liability period from the date that they moved back in. It said all relevant certificates will be reissued such as gas safe and fire certification.
It explained that the home warranty provider had taken an active role in providing guidance with the design and implementation of these repairs. They would undertake periodic inspections throughout the programme of works and would continue to do so until all remedial works have been completed. They would also issue a building control completion certificate for each block.
On 25 August 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord asking for information on the upcoming remedial works at the block. He stated that residents had not received any updates since its 28 May 2021 communication and they were concerned that there were a significant number of key questions that remained unanswered. He asked for a meeting with the landlord and the developer to discuss questions including if the landlord would buy back flats, if building insurance and other relevant policies were impacted by building issues, the dates for the decant and completion of works. He also asked for details of the home warranty scheme.
On 1 September 2021, the landlord replied to the resident apologising that he did not feel he had been fully informed about the works. It said it would take a number of extra steps to ensure he received timely and regular communications from it in the future. It explained it was planning to set up a dedicated webpage, a WhatsApp group, and a regular newsletter. He would also be contacted by a dedicated member of staff.
On the same date, it wrote to all residents stating that the developer remained committed to rectifying the issue. It provided questions and answers (Q&As) regarding their options, support, the need for their decant and timescales. This included a timetable for moving which included a window for residents of each block to move. The decant window for the resident’s block was 27 December 2021 to 9 January 2022. In response to the question regarding payment of service charges, it stated that it would continue to collect these payments from residents as per the lease agreement which it said would continue to cover items such as building insurance and communal area maintenance.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord issued the first monthly newsletters to residents capturing all new information and all Q&A raised by residents to date. Within this it stated it was still negotiating with the developer in relation to service charges.
On 28 September 2021, the resident (on behalf of all residents at his block) wrote to the landlord raising 37 questions that he stated were outstanding and to which he requested a response. These concerned the level of communication provided to date and he requested explanations including regarding:
1. Why it had changed its position about payment of the service charge.
2. Why it referred to the issue as “acoustic” when the remedial solution was structural.
3. Why the timescale for remedial works had been extended and if the cost of alternative accommodation during this timeframe would be fully covered.
4. If the decant window could be pushed back.
5. If the scope of works for each flat could be provided.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord emailed all residents informing them it had set up a dedicated webpage to inform them about the building works which it said included a list of Q&A which it said it would continue to update.
On 5 October 2021, a virtual residents meeting was held and on 8 October 2021 the landlord sent minutes of the meeting to residents (seen by this Service).
On 11 October 2021, the landlord provided the resident a stage 1 response in which it acknowledged that it was important that it learnt from his experience. It said it understood the importance of keeping residents updated and appreciated this was an anxious time for him. It had taken a number of steps to ensure he received timely regular communications from it. The landlord reiterated the steps taken and referred to the residents virtual meeting on 5 October 2021, stating that it was in the process of arranging further meetings with him. The landlord said that it had provided clarification to all 37 points, referring to attached spreadsheet. Within this it stated:
1. That residents do not have to pay service charges whilst the remedial works were being undertaken.
2. That the issue was not structural but the developer was adding support to the structure to stope the deflection in the floors.
3. The full cost of accommodation would be covered but residents should not enter into 12-month leases for alternative accommodation.
4. That the decant window could not be pushed back.
5. It would discuss each flats’ own schedule of works with residents in due course.
On 14 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord stating that several questions had only been partially answered and the disclosure of new conditions was concerning, particularly the requirement to not enter into 12-month leases for alternative accommodation. He stated that he had added further follow up questions to the spreadsheet attached.
The landlord replied that it would reply to these by 27 October 2021.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord issued its October 2021 newsletter which provided an update and answers to “frequently asked questions we’re receiving from residents”. Within this it provided the name and contact details of the appropriate contact at the landlord if residents had further questions.
On 22 October 2021, the landlord emailed residents about bank details information to set up alternative accommodation allowance payments.
On 25 October 2021, the resident said as the landlord intended to answer further queries by 27 October 2021, he requested for the deadline to submit the review panels request form be extended.
On the same date the landlord emailed the resident with answers to his additional questions. It confirmed it would extend the review deadline until 8 November 2021.
On 7 November 2021, the resident completed a Review Panel Request Form (RPRF). He complained that:
1. There had been a lack of information from the landlord. He reiterated that its management and communication of the upcoming remedial works had been extremely poor.
2. It had been untimely with providing information for example its notice that residents must not enter a 12-month lease for alternative accommodation.
3. There had been inconsistency with the information provided.
4. The tone of the landlord’s communications had been unempathetic and “cold”.
5. It had breached lease conditions in regard to suspension of shared ownership rent.
The resident said the landlord had failed to uphold its corporate values, especially ‘customer focused – we take ownership and responsibility, we are positive and engaging and we put residents at the heart of everything we do’. The resident requested that the landlord:
1. Provide an apology for “mismanagement and poor handling of communication”.
2. Appoint a dedicated resident liaison manager to manage all communication.
3. Commit to fully waiving the service charge.
4. Enable homes to be purchased back from residents.
5. Suspend shared ownership rent whilst works were ongoing.
6. Reconsider the decant window.
7. Provide compensation for the “high levels of stress and anxiety” for the issues experienced and for the ongoing stress and inconvenience whilst the works were being undertaken.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s RPRF and on 16 November 2021, confirmed that the review panel meeting would be held on 6 December 2021 and advised of the attendees’ names.
On 30 November 2021, a residents meeting took place for discussion of the remedial works and move to temporary accommodation. Representatives from the landlord, the developer and partner organisation were present as well as residents.
On 6 December 2021, the panel review meeting took place which was attended by the resident.
The landlord issued its December 2021 newsletter and on 20 December 2021 held a residents meeting attended by representatives from the landlord, the developer, and the partner organisation. This Service has seen the minutes of the meeting.
On 16 December 2021, the resident met with the developer who provided specific details of the works that would be carried out to his property.
On 23 December 2021, the landlord provided a ‘Review Panel Outcome’ final response in which it summarised the main point of the complaint. It said it appreciated the difficult situation this unusual defect in the building had created for residents and the disruption caused. However, it felt that its written communication had overall met standards. Nonetheless, it acknowledged and apologised if any of panel’s communications came across as “less than polite and empathic” and it accepted some communications could have been better. It stated that it would feedback and “redouble its efforts” to communicate to the expected standard.
The landlord explained that the scale of what was needed to deal with the issue including arranging alternative accommodation was more than it could deal with, which is why its partner organisation was now his main point of contact. The landlord provided information about this organisation and also contact details of its Senior Property Manager who could also be contacted.
Regarding service charges, it stated that it was sorry if its communications about this had been confusing. It confirmed whilst the building was in the control of the developer, residents would not be charged any service charges. It explained any service charges that remained would be recovered from the developer.
Regarding his request for the landlord to buy back his property, it said that the panel was unable to make this recommendation. The landlord explained why it believed clause 6.7 of the lease was not relevant to the issue and stated that its buyback policy was limited to buying back equity from shared owners at risk of losing their homes.
Turning to his request for the rent to be suspended, it would not agree to this because the developer agreed to cover the full cost of the alternative accommodation. It said whilst the resident believed there was a provision in the building warranty that provided for rent to be covered in these circumstances, its understanding was that this provision was not relevant, as the developer was dealing with all matters including providing payments for alternative accommodation. Therefore, it said that a claim through the building warranty was not needed. The landlord however said it would investigate this matter further and provide an update by 22 January 2022.
Regarding the decant window, it had tried to be flexible with the window for the moves and the target of 27 December 2021 to 9 January 2022 was communicated to residents in September (2021). It said there was some capacity to allow residents to move later. However, to help ensure residents could return as quickly as possible following the completion of the works, it wanted to keep as close to this timescale as possible.
In relation to compensation, the landlord reiterated that the developer would be considering compensation once the remedial works had been completed. It said by this time the exact period of time spent away from the property would be known.
The landlord stated it accepted he should have been provided with details of the work to be carried out to his home sooner. The panel was now aware he had met with the developer on 16 December 2021 and it had gone over these details with him.
The landlord stated due to the many matters raised during the meeting, it was sure the resident would feel some had been omitted from the response. It said for that reason, rather than closing the complaint fully, it would be happy to: “try to pick and address them subsequently” or schedule a further Teams meeting.

Post final response actions.

The resident moved out of his property into temporary accommodation on 5 January 2022.
Monthly newsletters were issued throughout 2022 however monthly residents’ meetings stopped after February 2022.
The landlord arranged a ‘follow up’ further meeting (via Teams) with the resident on 8 April 2022. This Service has not seen any evidence of communications between the parties following this meeting.
The landlord’s April 2022 newsletter stated that the home warranty provider’s policy does not provide cover for mortgage and/or rent payments. On 25 April 2022 the landlord provided the resident with this policy.
On 14 November 2023, the resident told this Service he moved back into the property in December 2022 and that whilst the developer had offered compensation, he was unhappy with its offer.

Landlord policies and obligations

There was a 12 month defect period (from handover in February 2019) in which the developer was responsible to address repairs and defects.
The landlord’s shared owners buy back policy states its policy aims to help shared owners in financial hardship due to a change in circumstances. Selling equity back to it will help reduce outgoings and prevent shared owners losing their home.
The landlord’s alternative home’s policy states it may ask a resident to move out of their home temporarily to carry out repairs and that it will provide suitable alternative accommodation in this circumstance. Its policy also states it will support homeowners find temporary accommodation where work is its responsibility.
Regarding compensation, residents may be able to claim for costs such as travel and removal costs.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure under which its stage 2 panel is required to provide a final response within 10 working days of the panel review meeting.

Assessment and findings

In its notice sent to all residents informing them of the defect, the landlord said it was meeting with the developer in early December 2020 to clarify the program of remedial works and that it would provide an update following this.
This Service recognises that notice of the defect was a significant cause of concern for the resident in terms of the potential safety and financial implications, but also about moving to alternative accommodation for an extended period to allow for the defect to be rectified. Whilst the landlord was not managing the move directly, as the freeholder it had a duty to work with the developer to facilitate this and to pass on information to residents as soon as it became aware of this. It was also important for the landlord to address any question or concerns raised by residents.
On receipt of the landlord’s notice of the defect, the resident raised a number of questions (53 in total) which he asked the landlord to raise with the developer. Apart from informing residents on 21 January 2021 that the developer intended to offer the same decant package as it had to private residents (in Blocks A and B), the landlord did not provide any significant update to all residents until 5 March 2021. Given the promise of an update following its meeting with the developer in early December 2020, the length of time taken by the landlord to provide this was unreasonable.
Further, although in its 5 March 2021 response the landlord provided information in relation to some of the key questions raised by the resident including safety concerns and the intended fix, the information provided did not address all of his concerns previously raised.
The landlord provided further updates on 23 April and 28 May 2021. However, these were relatively brief although they did provide information about extension of the defect liability period and the home warranty provider’s role in response to the concerns raised by the resident. The next update from the landlord was on 1 September 2021 which was only provided after the resident raised a concern with it on 25 August 2021 regarding the lack of contact to date.
Due to the scale of the works needed and logistics in arranging this and moving a high number of households into temporary housing, this Service recognises this process would take some time and that the landlord was taking steps to establish their private needs via sending out questionnaires. Nonetheless, given the stress the situation was causing the resident, it was reasonable to expect more regular updates from the landlord than it provided during the timeframe from 22 November 2020 up to 1 September 2021. The lack of sufficient updates at this stage and failure to properly address the resident’s questions within a reasonable timeframe led to him making a formal complaint in which he listed 37 questions that he said remained outstanding. On balance, this demonstrates that the landlord’s communication was unsatisfactory.
However, in its 1 September 2021 response, the landlord told the resident it would take a number of extra steps to ensure he received timely and regular communications from it in the future. The landlord reiterated this in its stage 1 response. It is clear that following this the landlord set up various different channels through which it kept the resident informed. This included sending a monthly newsletter (from 20 September 2021) which captured all new information and questions and answers. It also set up a dedicated website (from 27 September 2021) which included all newsletters and residents’ questions and answers and a ‘WhatsApp’ group. Furthermore, the landlord held regular residents’ meetings (from 5 October 2021) that it and the developer attended to discuss pertinent issues with residents. At the second residents’ meeting on 30 November 2021, a representative from the partner organisation appointed by the landlord to help manage the decant process also attended. This gave residents an opportunity to ask questions of all stakeholders which was appropriate.
As such it is clear that there was a substantial increase in the frequency of the landlord’s communication after 1 September 2021 when it also broadened the channels of its communications with residents. Within its stage 1 response, in the main, the landlord provided clear responses all of the questions raised by the resident at stage 1. It then provided timely answers to the further questions raised by the resident on 14 October 2021. Therefore, there was a marked improvement in the landlord’s communication indicating it was taking the resident’s complaint more seriously at this stage. Nonetheless, it is noted the resident was not provided with information about the specific works to his property until approximately 3 weeks prior to him moving out, this short notice was unreasonable. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged these details were provided to him late on in the process and apologised for this and instances of when its communication during the panel hearing did not meet the expected standard.
Therefore, there were delays with the landlord’s updates and instances of poor communication throughout the 13 month timeframe investigated although this significantly improved during the last 4 months as the move out date drew closer.
Within his communications, the resident expressed concerns about the landlord’s appointment of a partner organisation to manage the decant process and said this caused confusion. It is noted that in its final complaint response the landlord explained it took this action because within its existing structures, it was unable to deal with the scale of the issues that arose due to the defect, particularly in terms of arranging alternative accommodation for residents. Further, in its October, November and December 2021 newsletters, the landlord made clear that residents should contact the partner organisation for questions related to their move, whereas it should contact it for all other questions. Therefore, whilst it is understandable that an extra point of contact caused the resident concern, on balance, this Service is satisfied that the landlord’s explanation and communications about this issue was reasonable.
Regarding the resident’s concern about inconsistencies in the landlord’s responses, in its 1 September 2021 email to residents, the landlord stated that it would continue to collect service charge payments from residents during the decant period. It is accepted that this represented a reversal of what it had told residents on 5 March 2021 that the developer would cover service charges for this period. Whilst the landlord did, 6 weeks later, recommit to not collecting service charges which was appropriate, the change in its position without explanation would have caused confusion and was a failing.
During the timeframe investigated there were also revisions to information it gave the resident regarding the start date of works to his building from September 2021 (advised on 5 March 2021) to January 2022 (advised on 28 May 2021) and in relation to the anticipated length of the works (from 22 to 42 weeks). This Service recognises that the progress of the works was outside of the landlord’s control nonetheless it was foreseeable that residents would rely on the information it gave so it was important that it only passed on information that it was confident was accurate. Due to the inconsistencies in information provided, there was lack of clarity around some of the key issues which would have caused additional distress to residents.
In his review request, the resident complained to the landlord about its untimely notice to residents on 11 October 2021 that they must not enter a 12-month lease for alternative accommodation (due to remedial works not lasting this long). As the landlord informed residents of this less than 3 months prior to the decant window specified, it is accepted that earlier notice of this would have been helpful. However, in its response the landlord pointed out that the developer had advised of various alternative decant options to avoid this negotiation. It is clear that the developer was offering fully serviced flats, hotel accommodation or staying with family or friends (all with a temporary accommodation allowance of £910 per household per week). In light of this and because there is no evidence to show that the resident was directly impacted by this issue, on balance the relative untimeliness of this information does not constitute any failing.
Regarding payment of shared ownership rent, generally where residents are required to move out to temporary accommodation to allow for repair works to be undertaken and the landlord covers the full cost of this, it would not be expected to also waive rent payments for the property. This is to avoid double recovery for the same loss which is an established legal principal. Therefore, whilst the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s refusal to suspend rent payments, because the developer agreed to cover the full cost of the alternative accommodation, on the face of it, the landlord’s position on this was reasonable.
However, it is noted that in its final response the landlord agreed to look into claiming loss of rental income through the home warranty providers’ policy, telling the resident it would investigate this and provide an update by 22 January 2022. There is no evidence of the landlord providing this information within the timescale given. Although communications between the parties seen by this Service indicate the landlord did subsequently confirm its position on this in April 2022. It is also clear there was a 9-month delay by the landlord in providing the resident with the policy document. This is further evidence of unreasonable delays by the landlord indicating a failing. Whilst it is acknowledged the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s stated interpretation of the warranty cover, as this arose post final response, this Service is unable to comment on this.
In his 25 August 2021 communication to the landlord, the resident asked if it would buy back his flat. In its stage 1 response, the landlord informed the resident it would not buy back his property as its buy back policy was limited to where a shared owner was in financial difficulty with the potential of repossession and has exhausted all other options. This advice which the landlord reiterated throughout, was in line with its buy back policy. In light of this and because of the steps being taken to address the defect, this Service is satisfied that the landlord applied the position appropriately, as such no failing in relation to this issue has been shown.
In regard to the resident’s request for a compensation package, in terms of the move, the landlord told the resident the developer had agreed to cover all reasonable costs associated with the move (providing an allowance of £910 per household per week) plus they would provide storage facilities and arrange removals for residents. Also to cover any additional expenses where evidenced. This is reasonable as it ensured no additional costs would be incurred by residents. Whilst the landlord’s decant policy does not apply in this situation as responsibility for funding the decant was with the developer, this Service is satisfied that the package offered to the resident was reasonable and in line with the landlord’s policy.
During the complaints process the landlord also confirmed to the resident the developer would be offering compensation once all the works were completed, which would take into account the length of time the resident was away from his property. Given the significant impact caused by the issue including having to temporarily move and no option to sell the property whilst the work remained outstanding, it was appropriate for the developer to provide compensation which reflected the extent of the inconvenience and disruption caused so confirmation of this provided by the landlord, was appropriate.
The resident has since told this Service that he was unhappy with the level of compensation subsequently offered by the developer. As they are a third party and not a member landlord, this Service is unable to comment on the level of compensation offered.
In summary, it is clear the landlord took steps to work with the developer to facilitate the remedial works and the resident’s move out of the property. However, there were some delays in passing on information to residents and in answering the resident’s questions particularly during the initial 8 months following its notification of the defect. This would have caused the resident additional distress during an already difficult and stressful process. Given the number of failings, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have offered the resident redress for these during the complaint process. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge and apologise for some aspects of unsatisfactory service provided, it would have been appropriate to also offer the resident compensation in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused and the resident’s time and trouble. As it did not do so, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling remedial works and the resident’s temporary move into alternative accommodation.
In the circumstance it is reasonable to order that the landlord pay the resident £450 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This amount falls within the range stated for maladministration within our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints process does not state a timescale for when the panel review meeting will take place (after the resident requests escalation to stage 2), only that it will provide its final review response within 10 working days of the panel review meeting. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (The Code) however states the landlord must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The landlord provided the resident with its final response on 23 December 2021 following the panel review meeting on 6 December 2021. This indicates that it complied with the timescale stated in its complaints process. However, the resident requested the review on 7 November 2021 demonstrating that overall, it took the landlord 33 working days to provide its stage 2 response. As this is slightly outside of the 20 working day timescale stated in the Code, this delay constitutes a complaint handling failing, albeit a minor one.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s allegation that his share in the property was mis-sold due to the defect, is outside the scope of this Service’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling remedial works and the resident’s temporary move into alternative accommodation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s related complaint.

Reasons

These types of disputes are better suited for the courts to consider.
There were some delays and evidence of poor communication by the landlord whilst facilitating the remedial works and temporary move from the property. It did not acknowledge all of these in its complaint responses nor did it take adequate steps to put right its failings.
There was a minor delay by the landlord in providing its stage 2 final response to the resident.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders, within 4 weeks, that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident, £500 in compensation comprising of:
  1. £450 for stress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused whilst handling remedial works and the resident’s temporary move into alternative accommodation.
  2. £50 for its failing whilst complaint handling.
2. In compliance with our previous orders made for it to include a timeframe for its panel review meeting in its complaints process, the landlord has already confirmed to this Service that it is updating its complaints processes to reflect this.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review any other internal complaints received regarding the same defect and consider if it should apply and act upon learnings from the failings identified in this report.