Anchor Hanover Group (202303691)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303691

Anchor Hanover Group

30 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s administration of the service charge account, including the bank account arrangements.
2. The landlord’s handling of the programme for replacing residents’ front doors.
3. The landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance on the estate prior to the transfer of management, including the resident’s reports of fire safety issues.
4. The resident’s report of the landlord’s refusal to fund new equipment, including garden furniture and items for the guest room.
5. The resident’s report of delays in the landlord providing information and funds as part of the transfer of responsibility for managing the estate.
6. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

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 the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s administration of the service charge account, including the bank account arrangements.
2. The landlord’s handling of the programme for replacing residents’ front doors.
3. The resident’s report of the landlord’s refusal to fund new equipment, including garden furniture and items for the guest room.
4. The resident’s report of delays in the landlord providing information and funds as part of the transfer of responsibility for managing the estate.
The following paragraphs explain the reasons the Ombudsman considers each of these complaints to be outside its jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s administration of the service charge account, including the bank account arrangements to be outside its jurisdiction under paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The paragraph states: “The Ombudsman may not consider 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, other tribunal or procedure”. The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) has the expertise and authority to consider service charge issues and therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, is best placed to consider the landlord’s administration of the service charge account, including the bank account arrangements. This includes the following matters raised by the resident in her email dated 15 April 2023:
1. The resident’s view that the landlord had sufficient funds in the reserve fund to carry out redecorations earlier than it did.
2. The resident’s report that the landlord failed to produce a 5 or 10-year maintenance plan, which led to increased costs for residents.
3. The resident’s view that the landlord should have held a separate bank account for the estate.
4. The resident’s report that the amount charged by the landlord’s contractor for a new fence was “excessive” and had been carried out without the landlord consulting with residents.
The Ombudsman also considers the landlord’s handling of the programme for replacing residents’ front doors to be outside its jurisdiction under paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is because the resident believed the landlord should have managed the programme, whereas the landlord stated in its letter dated 15 May 2023 that it had not been able to manage the front door replacement project because the lease did not permit it to recover the cost of the works through the service charge. The Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on whether the landlord could have recovered the cost of the works through the service charge or indeed whether it was responsible for replacing the doors under the terms of the lease. This is because producing a definitive or binding ruling on the interpretation of the lease would be a matter for the courts or tribunal.
The Ombudsman considers the resident’s report of the landlord’s refusal to fund new equipment, including garden furniture and items for the guest room to be outside its jurisdiction under paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which was in operation in 2022 and 2023. Paragraph 42.c. stated: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… were not brought to the attention of the [landlord] as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
The funding of items for the guest room was discussed at the annual budget meeting on 5 November 2021 and the resident was subsequently aware that no provision had been made in the 2022-23 budget to fund these items. Furthermore, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident followed this matter up with the landlord to express her dissatisfaction until she raised the matter in a formal complaint on 10 February 2023. This was well over a year after discussion about the guest room on 5 November 2021.
In terms of the garden furniture, it is contested whether this was discussed at a meeting in 2021. However, the landlord wrote to one of the residents on 20 May 2022 to confirm it would not fund the new garden furniture. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the resident complained to the landlord about this matter until her formal complaint on 10 February 2023, which was over 8 months after the landlord wrote confirming that it would not fund the new garden furniture.
Although the period of 6 months previously stated in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme was a guide only, the Ombudsman’s view is that the resident did not formally complain about the guest room items and the garden furniture within a reasonable period.
The Ombudsman considers the resident’s report of delays in the landlord providing information and funds as part of the transfer of responsibility for managing the estate to be outside its jurisdiction under paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This is because the Right to Manage is a legal process set down in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and includes provision for the landlord to supply information and transfer any accrued uncommitted service charges to the Right to Manage company. Therefore, the courts or a tribunal are, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, best placed to consider any issues that occurred in relation to the process.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder and her property is a flat in a retirement block. The resident has been a leaseholder since 1 October 2012.
The landlord’s records did not show any vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
The management of the estate was transferred from the landlord to a new management company on 7 September 2022 following residents exercising the Right to Manage. Prior to the transfer of management responsibilities, the landlord was responsible for providing services such as repairs and maintenance, gardening and cleaning.
The landlord has advised this Service that there was no agreed schedule of repairs linked with the Right to Manage transfer, instead any communal repairs became the responsibility of the new management company.

Summary of events

On 22 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the leaseholders on the estate and explained that because of a fire risk assessment it had carried out, residents’ front doors were found to be non-compliant with the current fire regulations. Consequently, leaseholders would have to change their front doors. The letter stated that leaseholders would have to make their own arrangements for the work. The landlord sent follow-up letters to the leaseholders on 26 May 2021 and 18 June 2021 and reiterated that they would need to choose their own contractor to carry out the work. The landlord said the work would need to be completed by 10 September 2021.
On 5 November 2021, the landlord held an annual budget meeting with residents to discuss the service charges for 2022-23. The notes of the meeting show that various subjects were discussed including gardening, cleaning, the guest suite, the reserve fund, fire doors, doors being left open, the plans to replace the front doors and the removal of paintings from the communal areas. The notes confirmed that the internal and external decorations had been completed earlier in 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord shortly after the meeting on 5 November 2021 regarding the pictures that the landlord had removed from the communal areas (the exact date of the resident’s email is unclear). The landlord had stated this had been for health and safety reasons, however, the resident stated it was important to have stimulating pictures for residents to look at.
On 30 November 2021, the landlord wrote to advise the leaseholders that the front doors that had been fitted did not comply with the fire regulations because door closers had not been fitted to them.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 December 2021 regarding the installation of a new front door to each property to comply with the fire regulations. The resident stated that the landlord should have arranged and checked the work itself, rather than leaving the responsibility to leaseholders.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 March 2022 to report that one of the heaters in the lounge had been on, even though the weather had been very hot. She asked whether the heaters needed checking as it would affect their service charges. The landlord replied on the same day to advise that an electrician would be attending on 28 March 2022 to carry out electrical remedial work and therefore it would ask the electrician for advice.
On 1 May 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the floodlights had unnecessarily been on at 4am. The landlord replied on 16 May 2022 and advised the resident that its contractor would check the lights as they were operated by timers and sensors and therefore should not have been on.
The landlord wrote to leaseholders on 18 May 2022 and stated that it had met with the contractor who had fitted the front doors and agreed that to comply with the landlord’s fire safety policy, the contractor would fit smoke seals to each door.
The landlord wrote to one of the residents on 20 May 2022 to confirm that it was not prepared to fund new garden furniture as it did not want the service charges to increase further.
The landlord wrote to the leaseholders again on 6 June 2022 and confirmed that it had inspected the front doors jointly with the contractor and had signed them off as being compliant with the landlord’s fire safety policy.
On 14 June 2022, one of the other residents wrote to the landlord to report that flammable rubbish had been left overnight strewn in front of the communal door to the garden. She stated that it was a health and safety risk and that the landlord should remove the rubbish and not add the cost of removal to the service charges. The landlord replied on the following day to say that it had arranged for its contractor to stack the rubbish neatly ready for collection. It was therefore unaware of how the rubbish had become strewn near the door.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 June 2022 and pointed out that some of the bright lights were still coming on unnecessarily. The landlord replied on the same day and stated that it had spoken to the contractor about the emergency lighting and had been advised that some of the lights had to always remain on for safety reasons. The landlord stated that it would speak to its contractor to see whether any of the lights the resident was concerned about could be adjusted.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that its emergency lighting contractor would be on site on 15 July 2022 to fit new replacement emergency lights and check any faults with the other lights. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 July 2022 to confirm that the contractor had attended on 15 July and had checked the emergency lights. The contractor had advised the landlord that the emergency lighting was acceptable and would function perfectly well when needed. The contractor advised that it was unnecessary to change the lighting but did identify one light over the back door that was not working at the time.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2 August 2022 and clarified that she had been concerned about the lights being on when they should have been off. However, the resident confirmed that this had now been addressed. In August 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it had raised an order for its contractor to replace any spent bulbs on the ground floor.
On 10 February 2023, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord regarding various issues relating to the period when the estate was still managed by the landlord. She stated that the report attached to the complaint was from all 26 Right to Manage residents. The document included the following points:
1. The resident stated that the landlord had relied on one contractor to carry out repairs rather than seeking quotations from other contractors, had not checked the quality of communal work, the external decorating had been done 7 years late and the landlord had delayed sending documents relating to the transfer of management.
2. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the installation of the fire doors in 2021 and 2022 and provided a timeline of the events. She stated that some residents had questioned whether residents should have been responsible for the front doors based on their leases. The resident referred to various issues that other residents had faced in relation to the front door replacements.
3. The resident stated that there had been problems with the quality and the landlord’s handling of the fire safety work to the communal doors.
4. The resident stated that in June 2022 residents had become aware that a contractor had been storing flammable materials, including polystyrene and paint cans, in 2 understairs communal cupboards for months.
5. The resident stated that the landlord had not acted on unsatisfactory wiring between February 2020 and April 2022 (the remedial work was completed over a 4-day period in March 2022). She said that the landlord had received a wiring report in 2020 but had not addressed some of the urgent findings.
6. The resident said there had been inefficient budget planning and no 10-year plan of work.
7. The resident mentioned various issues that had been discussed at the annual budget meeting in November 2021, including new garden furniture, new bedding for the guest room and there had not been a separate bank account for the estate, which the resident said was contrary to best practice.
8. There had been no contract for gutter cleaning and no record of gutter cleaning in 2019.
9. The resident stated that the steps to the adjoining cottages had been left in a state of disrepair and then removed by the landlord and rubble had been left on the pathway for days following a wall being hit by a car.
10. The resident described various incidents involving the decorators, including the decorators leaving the chain off a window in the laundry, leaving the window catches on conservatory windows hanging off and leaving the conservatory door open when the decorators left the building.
11. The resident described other issues, including cupboard doors being left hanging off for months, a dripping overflow pipe in the guest room not being addressed for 11 months and the front entrance door being dirty and full of cobwebs.
12. The resident had reported in May 2022 that the communal lighting had been incorrectly set and this had led to lights being on unnecessarily. The resident was concerned this would have affected the costs for residents.
13. The resident said that the landlord had not acted on requests from residents since 2014 to build a retaining fence to prevent landslip from the communal garden into a neighbouring garden. The landlord had arranged for the fence to be erected just before the transfer of management but had not tendered the work or consulted with leaseholders.
14. The resident claimed that the landlord displayed a “dictatorial attitude” and gave an example of the landlord setting a date for a meeting without consulting residents and of the landlord stating that only art approved by the landlord could be hung in the communal lounge.
15. The resident stated that the landlord had used its day-to-day contractor to carry out skilled work in properties. She gave an example affecting her own property where she had reported draughts from her windows and patio doors in 2018. Draught excluder was fitted in 2020 and although the day-to-day contractor had been requested to refurbish the windows, the work was not done because the contractor did not have a FENSA certificate. The resident was told that a Section 20 meeting would be arranged, however, this did not take place because of the transfer of management.
16. The resident gave another example where Velux windows had been replaced in one of the other flats by the landlord’s day-to-day contractor, even though the contractor did not have a FENSA certificate.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 February 2023 to acknowledge the complaint and the landlord discussed the complaint with the resident on 16 February 2023. The landlord agreed with the resident that it may take longer to reply to the complaint than the prescribed 10-working day target because of the length of the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident with its stage one reply on 14 March 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. The resident had complained about the landlord not tendering out to other contractors for day-to-day repairs or during section 20 consultations. The landlord stated that there had been no need to tender for day-to-day repairs as the contractor had been the nominated contractor for the estate. The landlord said it had consulted appropriately on any works that had been over the Section 20 financial limit.
2. Any works completed on the estate would have been checked routinely, however, during the COVID pandemic it had not been possible to inspect all works physically.
3. The landlord accepted that there had been a lack of redecoration in the past due to insufficient reserves and due to COVID. The works had been completed in January 2021 after consultation with residents.
4. In terms of the complaint that the landlord had failed to manage the resident’s front door replacement in 2020-2022, the landlord said that residents were responsible for their own front doors. Therefore, the landlord’s involvement had been limited.
5. During the management handover (under the Right to Manage) on 7 September 2022, the landlord’s staff had been available to support the process. The landlord had sent a full response to the local MP on 31 October 2022 regarding the handover of files and documents.
6. During the annual business meeting on 5 November 2021, the landlord had offered residents a 5-year plan for works if they wanted a copy. A 5-year plan was deemed by the landlord to be appropriate as it was due to complete a full stock condition survey by the end of 2023.
7. A fixed wiring inspection had been carried out on 4 February 2020 and only non-urgent and advisory works were identified. COVID restrictions had delayed some of the remedial works. The landlord had used its nominated long-term contractor to carry out the work, which was completed in March 2022. It had been too late to budget for the work as the 2021-22 budget had already been set.
8. During the annual review meeting on 3 September 2021, residents had advised the landlord that they did not want a budget for garden furniture and during a meeting on 5 November 2021, residents had been undecided about expenditure on the guest room.
9. The landlord explained that it had followed the legislation in terms of its banking arrangements.
10. The landlord confirmed it had not had a separate contract in place for gutter cleaning. It said that gutter cleaning had been done as and when it was needed.
11. The landlord had removed some steps on the estate and replaced them with a temporary safety barrier. However, the landlord stated that residents had subsequently removed the barrier.
12. The landlord acknowledged that it could have done more to mitigate risks while it was waiting to remove rubble from a car accident, which occurred in March 2022.
13. The landlord said that residents had not previously mentioned that the decorating contractors had left a security chain off a laundry window.
14. The decorating contractor had returned in 2021 to deal with the conservatory windows that would not open after they were painted.
15. The landlord said it had no records of previous reports about the decorating contractors leaving the conservatory door open.
16. The condition of the laundry cupboard had been discussed at the annual review meeting on 3 September 2021 as it was in the 2022-23 planned works programme. In the meantime, a works order would have been raised to deal with any interim repairs needed to the laundry cupboard doors.
17. The landlord said that a contractor had attended to the guest room toilet overflow on several occasions and had to replace the toilet to resolve the issue.
18. The landlord said that residents should have advised the estate manager about any issues regarding cleaning the entrance door.
19. In relation to the resident’s concerns about incorrect communal lighting usage, the landlord clarified that it had emergency lighting and normal communal lighting.
20. The landlord said it had erected a fence between its estate and a neighbouring property to prevent landslip soil movement onto the neighbour’s property.
21. The landlord stated that the remedial fixed wiring work had been completed in March 2022.
22. The landlord apologised that the meeting held on 5 April 2022 had not been convenient for some residents.
23. The landlord said it had been necessary for it to make decisions about which paintings and pictures could be hung on the communal walls due to fire risks.
24. The landlord outlined the arrangements it had put in place for carrying out works in some of the other properties on the estate, including the installation of Velux windows prior to March 2022.
25. The landlord said that items had been found in the communal cupboards but it was unable to determine when items had been placed there. It confirmed that communal areas are checked during health and safety checks and the last one had been on 26 May 2022. It had raised orders for the contents to be disposed of and stated that the contractor had to leave some bags of rubbish on site overnight as its van was full. The landlord said it could have investigated the matter further had residents reported at the time that bags had been left in the communal area.
26. The landlord outlined the process it had followed in replacing the residents’ front doors. The landlord concluded by accepting the replacement of the residents’ front doors started with poor communication but once the correct responsibilities had been established, all concerns were dealt with appropriately.
27. The landlord said that prior to residents exercising their right to move away from the landlord’s management, it had worked hard to overcome the dissatisfaction felt by many residents.
The resident wrote on 3 April 2023 to request the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 15 April 2023 and provided the detailed reasons she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply. The document included the following points, which the resident said were contested:
1. The resident stated that the day-to-day contractor had been nominated by the landlord and at the annual review meeting on 3 September 2021 residents had not been provided with the cost of repairs. The resident believed that even in the case of non-Section 20 works, the landlord should have been able to demonstrate value for money.
2. Residents were not aware of any routine inspections by the landlord to check the quality of completed repairs.
3. The resident questioned the landlord’s assertion that it had not carried out previous redecorations to communal areas because of insufficient funds in the reserve fund. She quoted the balances in 2017 to 2019. The resident also questioned the landlord’s statement that COVID had led to delays in doing the work. The resident stated that the work started in January 2021 and was completed in March 2021.
4. Residents had spent a considerable amount of time researching the contractors for the front door replacement work and there was considerable communication between each resident and the contractor.
5. The resident said there had been a substantial delay in the transfer of both funds and information to the new management company as part of the transfer of management on 7 September 2022.
6. The resident stated that no copies of the 5-year maintenance plan were offered to residents at the annual business meeting on 5 November 2021. The resident said that there had been various occasions when work had been scheduled but not carried out. She pointed out that the lack of planning had led to increased costs for residents and she gave examples of projects in 2015, 2019 and 2020.
7. The resident contested the landlord’s assessment that some of the findings in the wiring report of 4 February 2020 were non-urgent. The resident also questioned the landlord’s statement that COVID restrictions had delayed some of the electrical remedial work, which began in March 2022. The resident stated that it had been remiss of the landlord to have delayed the electrical work by 2 years after the report had been issued.
8. The resident contested the landlord’s assertion that residents had turned down the option of setting aside a budget for new garden furniture at the annual review meeting of 3 September 2021.
9. The resident contested the landlord’s assertion that residents had been undecided at the meeting on 5 November 2021 whether they wanted to spend funds on the guest room. She stated that residents wanted it to be used once again for guests after the decorators had finished their work.
10. The resident stated that residents had complained about the landlord not having a separate bank account for the estate and were overruled in April 2022.
11. The resident stated that the landlord should have had arrangements in place to inspect the guttering regularly as had been the case until 2017.
12. The resident said that the removal of the steps between the resident’s building and the cottages by the landlord left a large drop.
13. The resident stated that the problem with the conservatory windows not opening properly following the decorating remained until the transfer of management.
14. The resident said that dampness had occurred in the guest suite and a neighbouring flat over several years due to a leaking overflow pipe.
15. The resident stated that there was “a hotchpotch” of different lighting on the estate and this had created past problems because the systems had been too complex for electricians who had been called to carry out work. The resident stated that no information was made available to the new management company following the transfer. However, the new management company had actioned the replacement of the lighting following the transfer.
16. The resident stated that the fencing between the estate and the neighbouring property had been erected without consultation with residents, even though they had been reporting the problem for 10 years. The resident considered the amount charged by the contractor for the fence to be excessive.
17. The resident said that residents had been told the date for the meeting on 5 April 2022 was “set in stone”.
18. The resident questioned the landlord’s reasons for not allowing residents to choose which pictures should be hung in the communal lounge.
19. The resident stated that the landlord had failed to act on her reports of draughts in her property over a 3-year period and believed that the work should have been done prior to the transfer of management.
20. The resident stated that the landlord had not addressed the health and safety implications of flammable material being stored in the understairs cupboards for months. She said that it had not been discovered until June 2022 and the bags of rubbish should not have been stacked near the exit door overnight.
21. The resident reiterated her dissatisfaction regarding the landlord’s handling of the front door replacements. The landlord had proposed to fund the work from the reserve fund but had reviewed the lease and realised it could not recover the costs under the leases.
22. The resident pointed out that prior to receiving the landlord’s stage one reply she had not seen the fire risk assessment report produced in September 2020. The report had identified that the meter cupboard doors near the laundry were non-compliant. Therefore, the resident asked whether the landlord accepted that there had been a failure on its part in not replacing the doors during the communal fire safety work.
23. The resident referred to photos she had taken in April 2023, which she said showed damage to internal communal walls near various residents’ front doors following the communal decorating in 2021 and the front door replacements in 2021-2022.
24. The resident contended that it had not been necessary for the ground floor residents to change their front doors.
25. The resident questioned why the landlord had made it a priority for residents to change their front doors when the landlord had not dealt with health and safety issues such as the replacement of the meter cupboard doors.
26. The resident raised other issues arising from the fire risk assessment dated 9 September 2020.
27. The resident concluded by requesting the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the process.
The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 April 2023 and sent its stage 2 reply on 19 April 2023 in which it stated the following:
1. Its Customer Relations team had provided a summary of the complaint in its acknowledgement letter. This had been intended to give an overview of the complaint.
2. Although the stage one investigating officer had not numbered the paragraphs in his reply, he had responded in the same sequential order as was listed in the resident’s complaint.
3. The landlord stated that it would be happy to address the specific points the resident was challenging when she provided the details.
4. The landlord confirmed that the services it had provided had to adhere to the terms of the lease and health and safety legislation.
5. The landlord said it believed it had acknowledged, apologised and given explanations on why some works were delayed.
6. The landlord agreed that it should credit residents’ accounts for the cost of removing the rubble from the communal cupboards and would make the arrangements to do so.
7. The landlord apologised that it had not met residents’ expectations on numerous occasions but said it was not able to offer compensation.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 April 2023 and referred to her email of 15 April 2023 in which she had listed the contested points. She questioned whether the landlord had seen the document prior to sending its stage 2 reply. The resident asked whether the landlord would amend and reissue its stage 2 reply.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 May 2023 to confirm it had received the detailed documents from the resident setting out the contested areas. It stated that it had not seen the document prior to sending its stage 2 reply. It therefore agreed to review the document and send a revised stage 2 reply. However, it stated that it would take longer than expected to send the revised reply given the level of detail included in the resident’s correspondence.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord sent an additional stage 2 reply and some of the points included were:
1. Details of repairs and other transactions were available to residents at any time and were made available when reviewing the annual spend figures at the annual review meeting.
2. All planned works were inspected by the surveyor before sign-off and the estate manager would seek advice if they were unhappy with the quality of an individual repair.
3. The landlord acknowledged there were insufficient funds and accepted there was a delay in the external and internal redecoration.
4. The landlord stated that it had not been able to manage the front door replacement project because the lease did not permit it to recover the cost of the works through the service charge. The landlord also said that it had been unable to instruct a contractor on the residents’ behalf as residents were responsible for the front doors and it had not influenced the type of door closer used by the contractor.
5. Although the resident stated that the landlord had delayed sending information to the new management company, the landlord said that the information had not been formally requested by the new management company under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act.
6. Residents had had an opportunity to comment on the redecorations proposals when the Section 20 Notice of Intent had been issued on 8 June 2020.
7. The landlord confirmed that its records showed communal lighting had been scheduled for replacement in 2023. It acknowledged that the lighting system was complicated. It said that orders had been raised each time there had been a reported issue with the lighting.
8. In terms of the resident’s reports about gutters not being cleaned, the landlord advised that its estate managers were reluctant to carry out works that had not been budgeted for in the year as this would impact on the service charges residents would have to pay. The landlord stated that gutter clearance would generally not impact on health and safety or the structure of the building and could therefore be deferred.
9. The landlord said that the replacement of the toilet in the guest room had resolved the reported problem with the leaking overflow.
10. The landlord apologised that it had missed opportunities to deal with the resident’s reports of draughty windows while scaffolding was up for the exterior decoration.
11. The landlord accepted that the understairs cupboards had not been checked monthly and that the rubbish from the cupboards should not have been stored overnight in the stairwell.
12. The landlord accepted that it had missed the need to carry out remedial works to the meter cupboard doors near the laundry to make them compliant with the fire regulations.
13. The landlord said it was disappointing that it had decorated residents’ front doors and then later found them to be non-compliant with the fire regulations and therefore had to be replaced.
14. The landlord concluded by saying it believed it had responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 May 2023 to say that she accepted its apology for its failure to replace her windows and doors. However, she did not accept the remainder of the landlord’s stage 2 reply as satisfactory and would therefore be escalating her complaint.
On 21 August 2023, the resident wrote to this Service to clarify the main points of her complaint and the outcomes she was seeking. The resident’s email stated:
1. The primary complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the replacement of residents’ front doors with fire doors.
2. The landlord had received a wiring report in 2020 which had identified items needing urgent attention, however, the resident stated that the landlord had left these for 2 years.
3. The landlord had carried out a fire risk assessment in 2020 and the resident had seen this for the first time as part of the landlord’s stage one reply. The resident stated that 9 risk items had been left unaddressed.
4. The resident stated that the landlord’s stage 2 reply had not addressed her rebuttals to the landlord’s stage one reply. She stated that she was seeking the following outcomes:
  1. Recognition of residents’ financial losses as a result of delayed work, uncontested contractors’ charges, unsupervised repairs/maintenance work. (The resident noted that the landlord had refunded one item, which was the cost of rubbish removal).
  2. Compensation for the significant resources required to manage, challenge, and rectify the landlord’s failings.
  3. Repayment for any charges unfairly placed on residents.
  4. Compensation for the mental health and wellbeing suffering that many residents endured due to the landlord’s reported mismanagement.
On 13 August 2024, the resident wrote to this Service to provide additional information regarding various matters, including information regarding the reported lack of provision of a resident manager while the landlord was responsible for the estate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made.
In the case of many of the matters raised by the resident in her stage one and two complaints, the events took place some time ago and the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident formally complained about the issues until her complaint dated 10 February 2023. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment not to investigate the following maintenance-related subjects raised by the resident in her complaint:
1. The resident’s concerns about whether the landlord obtained value for money in using its nominated contractor rather than seeking quotes. The resident stated in her email dated 15 April 2023 that the landlord had not provided residents with the cost of repairs for its nominated contractor at the annual review meeting on 3 September 2021. This shows that the contractor had been carrying out repairs before 2021, however, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about a lack of value for money in relation to repairs prior to her complaint in February 2023.
2. The steps from the resident’s building to the adjoining cottages – the resident stated in her complaint dated 10 February 2023 that the steps had been left in a state of disrepair for years. The information received from the resident shows that the steps were reported to be rotting and unusable in September 2020. The landlord has advised this Service that the steps were removed in March 2022. However, the information sent to the Ombudsman by the resident suggests that the removal of the steps may been earlier. Therefore, the exact date the steps were removed is unclear from the evidence seen, however, the evidence indicates they were removed prior to March 2022. Therefore, based on the information received, the Ombudsman would have expected the resident to have formally complained about the removal of the steps and the resulting gap prior to her complaint in February 2023.
3. The reported issues regarding the communal decorating and the issues with the conservatory windows following the decorating – in her stage one and two complaints, the resident described various incidents that had occurred during the communal decorating. She also mentioned that the conservatory windows had not opened properly following the decorating and remained this way until the transfer of management. The communal decorating had taken place in 2021, however, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about these matters until her complaint in February 2023.
4. The resident’s reports of dampness caused to the guest room and another flat in the building due to a leaking overflow – the resident stated in her complaints that the overflow had been leaking over several years. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the toilet in the guest room was replaced in November 2021 and this resolved the overflow issue. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about the leaking overflow or dampness until her complaint in February 2023.
5. The landlord presenting residents with a “non-negotiable” date for a meeting – the landlord arranged the meeting to take place on 5 April 2022 and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about the landlord’s lack of flexibility in setting the date of the meeting until she complained in February 2023.
6. The resident’s report that the landlord refused to allow residents to choose the pictures that should be hung in the communal lounge – the notes of the annual budget meeting on 5 November 2021 show that this subject was discussed at the meeting. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about the matter until her complaint in February 2023.
7. The resident’s reports of draughts in her property – the resident stated that the landlord had not resolved problems of draughts in her property over a 3-year period. She also stated that she understood the work to her windows had been scheduled to take place while scaffolding was in place for the external decorating. As the external decorating was completed in March 2021, the resident could have submitted a complaint at that point or shortly after the works.
8. The storage of waste materials in the understairs cupboards – the waste material, which was reported to be flammable, was found in the understairs cupboards in June 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about the matter until her complaint in February 2023.
9. The resident had submitted photographs showing cracks in the communal walls near front doors following the door replacement programme. The new front doors were signed off by the landlord at the beginning of June 2022. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident formally complained about the damage to the communal walls until her complaints made in February and April 2023.
In deciding not to investigate the above matters, the Ombudsman has also taken into account that the resident waited until after the Right to Manage transfer before submitting her complaint. This meant that the landlord was no longer responsible for carrying out repairs to the estate and therefore would not be in a position to carry out any outstanding repairs included in the resident’s complaint. The landlord has confirmed that the new management company took on all responsibility for communal repairs following the transfer.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident is seeking compensation to recognise residents’ reported financial losses as a result of:
1. Delayed work.
2. Contractors’ charges that she stated the landlord had not contested.
3. Reported unsupervised repairs/maintenance work.
4. The resources required to challenge the landlord.
5. For the “mental health and wellbeing suffering” experienced by residents in relation to the landlord’s management of the estate.
However, it is not within the Ombudsman’s expertise to determine negligence, liability or compensation claims in the same way as the courts, or to order damages in relation to these. Only a court can offer a definitive and legally binding decision in relation to such matters. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord appropriately considered matters within the timeframe of the complaint, and reasonably responded, applied its policy and procedure, complied with any relevant legislation and followed good practice when reaching decisions.
The resident is also seeking repayment for any charges she believes were unfairly placed on residents. Matters relating to service charges, such as whether they were reasonable, fall within the remit of the First-Tier Tribunal and have therefore not been investigated by the Ombudsman.
On 13 August 2024, the resident provided this Service with additional information regarding the landlord’s lack of provision of a resident manager while it managed the estate. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. This Service has therefore considered it fair and reasonable not to investigate the matters raised by the resident in relation to the provision of a resident manager.
The resident has advised this Service that her complaint was made on behalf of all residents in her building. However, as per paragraph 25 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service considers complaints from individuals and there is no provision under this paragraph for this Service to consider complaints from groups of residents.
In certain circumstances, however, the Ombudsman may accept an individual complaint as a lead case so that any decisions made in connection with it may also apply to others in the same circumstances. In this case, having considered all the evidence, the Ombudsman has concluded that the circumstances are not the same for all the residents and therefore the resident’s complaint should not be dealt with as a group complaint. Some of the examples where residents were affected differently were:
1. The resident reported that the windows in her property had been draughty. Therefore, this did not affect other residents.
2. The resident reported that a leaking overflow had caused dampness in the guest room and one of the other flats in the building. Therefore, the reported dampness had only affected one of the flats plus the guest room.
3. In terms of the front door replacement programme, the resident had argued that it had not been necessary for the doors to be changed in relation to the ground floor flats due to their specific circumstances. This point therefore only affected the ground floor properties, rather than all the properties in the scheme.
Although the resident’s complaint has not been treated as a group complaint, the resident may wish to share the report with other residents.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance on the estate prior to the transfer of management, including the resident’s reports of fire safety issues

The landlord’s repairs policy states that its Area Surveyors will carry out quality control inspections on high-value repairs, a sample of other repairs and repairs where there is a low satisfaction score.
The landlord had stated in its stage one reply on 14 March 2023 that any works completed on the estate would have been routinely inspected by its surveyors. However, these arrangements had been interrupted during the COVIDlockdown. The resident stated in her reply dated 15 April 2023 that residents were not aware of routine inspections by surveyors.
The landlord and the resident therefore disputed whether repairs were routinely checked by the surveyors. The landlord’s repairs policy makes it clear that the landlord would only inspect certain repairs, such as high value repairs, repairs where there is low resident satisfaction and a sample of other repairs. Therefore, the landlord had not committed to inspecting all repairs.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident complained to the landlord about specific repairs that she believed it should have inspected but had not done so. In the absence of such evidence, this Service is unable to determine whether the landlord had met the requirements of its policy to inspect certain repairs. The Ombudsman has therefore concluded that there is no evidence of failings in terms of the landlord post-inspecting repairs.
A fixed wiring inspection was carried out by the landlord’s contractor on 4 February 2020 and the report identified C2 and C3 category works that needed to be addressed. The landlord stated in its stage one reply that the identified works had been non-urgent works (C2 category) and advisory works (C3 category items). The landlord stated that the COVID restrictions delayed the C2 and C3 remedial work and its contractor completed the work in March 2022.
In her stage 2 complaint, the resident disputed the landlord’s assessment that the C2 category works were “non-urgent”. She quoted from the wiring inspection report, which she said stated that C2 category defects were “potentially dangerous” and required “urgent remedial action”.
In terms of the COVID lockdowns, the first COVID-19 lockdown started on 23 March 2020 and between this date and 31 May 2020, most landlords were only carrying out emergency repairs. However, on 1 June 2020, the Government had issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs as long as they were carried out in line with public health advice. The second lockdown was from 5 November 2020 to 2 December 2020. However, the national guidance at the time stated that landlords could still carry out repairs and safety inspections if in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during the third lockdown, which started on 6 January 2021.
Therefore, the landlord could have carried out the electrical work recommended in the report from June 2020 onwards. However, the Ombudsman is aware that the lockdown and the pandemic created a number of further challenges to landlords across the sector, including backlogs, staff shortages and shortages of materials, which went long into 2021.
The notes to the electrical report state: “C2 (‘Potentially dangerous’), the safety of those using the installation may be at risk and it is recommended that a skilled person or persons competent in electrical installation work undertakes the necessary remedial work as a matter of urgency”. The Ombudsman would therefore expect the landlord to have arranged for the C2 works to be carried out much earlier than March 2022. Given the health and safety implications of the defects that were found, it was unreasonable that the landlord delayed carrying out the C2 coded works. Furthermore, the landlord could have been proactive in updating residents about the outstanding works.
The landlord stated in its stage one reply that there was no contract in place for gutter cleaning and that this was carried out as and when required. The landlord added that it had not received any requests from leaseholders for the gutters to be cleaned, otherwise it would have arranged this. The landlord added in its stage 2 reply that it would prefer to defer work if it believed that the removal of foliage from gutters could wait until funds were available in a future budget and there were minimal implications for health and safety or the building structure.
The Home Standard produced by the Regulator for Social Housing in 2012 stated: “Registered providers shall ensure a prudent, planned approach to repairs and maintenance of homes and communal areas. This should demonstrate an appropriate balance of planned and responsive repairs, and value for money”.
Work such as gutter clearance would be seen as planned maintenance and would be carried out to prevent problems such as rainwater overspilling from blocked gutters and causing penetrating dampness. Therefore, planned maintenance is seen as preventative work and is considered good practice. However, the Ombudsman is aware that landlords must balance competing financial priorities and may not be able to carry out work such as gutter cleaning.
In this case, although the presence of plants growing in the gutters would have been an eyesore, this Service has not seen any evidence that the lack of gutter cleaning caused any specific damage to the building structure or any detriment to the resident. The view of the Ombudsman is therefore that the landlord was entitled to make budgeting decisions in relation to planned maintenance and to decide when it would carry out gutter cleaning.
In her stage 2 letter, the resident outlined various issues relating to the lighting on the estate. She mentioned that there had been “excessive illumination” and in some cases lights had not worked. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 reply that the lighting system for the estate was complicated and said that it had been scheduled for replacement in 2023. The landlord added that it had raised orders to repair the lighting whenever problems with the lights had been reported.
The evidence shows that the resident wrote to the landlord on 1 May 2022 to report that floodlights were coming on unnecessarily during the night. The landlord replied on 16 May 2022 and confirmed it would arrange for its contractor to check the lights. As the resident was concerned about the floodlights being on unnecessarily and therefore using electricity, it was reasonable that the landlord had agreed for its contractor to check the timers and sensors for the lighting.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 16 June 2022 and reported that some of the floodlights were still coming on unnecessarily. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord had provided any updates to the resident regarding the lights, even though it had been a month since it had agreed to arrange for a contractor to check the lights. This was a shortcoming on the part of the landlord. Although the lights coming on unnecessarily was not a health and safety issue, the resident was clearly concerned about the additional electricity that was being used. The landlord advised the resident on the same day that the contractor had stated that some of the lights had to remain on for safety reasons but it would ask the contractor whether any of the lights could be adjusted.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 July 2022 to confirm that it had asked its emergency lighting contractor to check any faults with the lights on 15 July 2022. As the landlord had already scheduled its emergency lighting contractor to be on site on 15 July 2022, it was reasonable that it had requested the contractor to check all the lighting.
The landlord advised the resident on 28 July 2022 that the contractor had checked the lighting on 15 July 2022 and had found the emergency lighting to be functioning correctly. The contractor also reported that it was unnecessary to change the lighting. As the lighting had been inspected by the electrical contractor, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the contractor’s expert advice. However, it was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not directly addressed the resident’s concerns about lights being on unnecessarily and therefore needlessly using electricity.
The resident confirmed on 2 August 2022 that the lights she had reported had been addressed. It is not clear from the evidence when the problem was resolved, however, the evidence indicates that it had not been resolved by mid-July 2022. The landlord had therefore taken at least two and a half months to resolve the problem following the resident’s report on 1 May 2022. It was therefore a shortcoming that the landlord took as long as it did to resolve the issue. The impact on the resident (and other residents on the estate) was the additional electricity costs in their service charges. However, any refunds of service charges would be for the First-Tier Tribunal to consider rather than the Ombudsman.
The landlord accepted in its stage one reply that the doors situated next to the laundry were identified as non-compliant during the fire risk assessment in September 2020, however, they were omitted from the works order for the communal fire safety work. The landlord stated that this would still need to be completed but did not offer an apology for the omission. The landlord did not add any further information about these doors in its stage 2 reply. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have apologised for the omission as it had accepted that an error had been made.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not carry out works to the meter cupboard doors. Following the transfer on 7 September 2022, the Right to Manage company began Section 20 consultation with residents for the replacement of the meter cupboard doors.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found the following failings in connection with the landlord’s handling of repairs and maintenance on the estate:
1. There was a delay in carrying out the electrical works arising from the wiring inspection in 2020.
2. The landlord did not include the meter cupboard doors in the communal fire safety works and did not apologise for this omission.
The Ombudsman has therefore found there was service failure on the landlord’s part and ordered the landlord to issue an apology to the resident for the failings identified. The Ombudsman has considered the level of detriment caused to the resident by these failings and considers an apology to be appropriate redress to put things right in this case.
As the responsibility for the maintenance of the estate now rests with a separate company, the Ombudsman has not considered it appropriate to order the landlord to carry out any remedial works in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s Complaints and Compliments Procedure states that the landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. The timescale for the landlord to reply at each stage of the process is 14 calendar days. The procedure states that if an extended timescale is required, this will be agreed with the complainant and the revised timescale will be communicated to them.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint on 10 February 2023 and the landlord sent its reply on 14 March 2023. The landlord therefore took 32 calendar days to reply. This was longer than the 14-day target prescribed in its procedure. However, the landlord had spoken to the resident on 16 February 2023 and advised her that it might take longer to respond because of the length of the complaint. Therefore, as there were several points contained in the complaint and the landlord had advised the resident there might be a delay in replying, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord replied within a reasonable timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 April 2023 to say she was dissatisfied with the stage one reply and requested the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident then wrote to the landlord on 15 April 2023 with the detailed reasons she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply.
The landlord sent its initial stage 2 reply on 19 April 2023, which was 16 calendar days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore took slightly longer than its prescribed timescale, which was a shortcoming on its part.
The landlord clarified on 2 May 2023 that it had not seen the resident’s detailed email dated 15 April 2023 before sending its stage 2 reply. The landlord said it would review the document and send a further stage 2 reply. However, it advised the resident that there would be a delay in replying due to the length of the resident’s supplementary document. The landlord sent the additional stage 2 reply on 15 May 2023, which was 13 calendar days after the landlord had contacted her on 2 May 2023 to acknowledge it would review the resident’s additional information. The Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded within a reasonable timescale to the additional information submitted by the resident as part of her stage 2 complaint.
Overall, the landlord therefore replied within reasonable timescales at both stage one and stage 2 of the complaints process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s administration of the service charge account, including the bank account arrangements is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the programme for replacing residents’ front doors is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs and maintenance on the estate prior to the transfer of management, including the resident’s reports of fire safety issues.
In accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report of the landlord’s refusal to fund new equipment, including garden furniture and items for the guest room is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s report of delays in the landlord providing information and funds as part of the transfer of responsibility for managing the estate is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) has the expertise and authority to consider service charge issues and therefore, in the Ombudsman’s opinion is best placed to consider the landlord’s administration of the service charge account, including the bank account arrangements.
The Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on whether the landlord could have recovered the cost of the works through the service charge or indeed whether it was responsible for replacing the front doors under the terms of the lease. This is because producing a definitive or binding ruling on the interpretation of the lease would be a matter for the courts or tribunal.
There was a delay in the landlord carrying out the electrical works arising from the wiring inspection in 2020. The landlord did not include the meter cupboard doors in the communal fire safety works and did not apologise for this omission.
The resident did not formally complain about the guest room items and the garden furniture within a reasonable period.
The Right to Manage is a legal process set down in the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and includes provision for the landlord to supply information and transfer any accrued uncommitted service charges to the Right to Manage company. Therefore, the courts or a tribunal are, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, best placed to consider any issues that occurred in relation to the process.
The landlord replied within reasonable timescales at both stage one and stage 2 of the complaints process.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.