Bristol City Council (202010485)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010485

Bristol City Council

11 November 2021

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports that a lean-to was unlawfully removed;
2. works it had agreed to complete to allow the reinstatement of the lean-to;
3. the resident’s concerns about the validity of a guarantee for external wall insulation (EWI) works.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 39(o) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon’.
This Service previously considered a complaint from the resident about the landlord’s handling of a major works programme to install EWI and the condition of a roof – it issued a determination under case reference 201706303 on 14 August 2018.
This included an investigation into the circumstances of the removal, and proposed reinstatement, of a lean-to structure. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that a lean-to was unlawfully removed is therefore out of jurisdiction as it has already been considered by the Ombudsman.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the property which is a two-storey semi-detached house. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord has recorded that two members of the resident’s household have a disability. The resident’s brother has represented her during the complaints process and any correspondence from him will be stated in this report as being from ‘the resident’.
The landlord has a tenancy agreement booklet that shows that it is obliged to maintain the exterior of the property.
The landlord began to carry out a programme of works in early 2015 to apply EWI to properties which it said would reduce heat loss. The resident’s property was part of the programme of works and a 25-year guarantee (starting on 30 March 2017) was provided by the installer for the EWI works at the property.
The landlord’s website has a section about right to buy that says ‘once we get your notice claiming the right to buy, we’ll only carry out health and safety repairs’ and not carry out ‘general repairs, planned maintenance or improvements’.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints policy that sets out its obligations to respond to complaints within 15 working days (at stage one) and 20 working days (at stage two).
During the period covered by this complaint, the resident made a right to buy application. This Service does not investigate the handling of right to buy applications for local authority tenants. The resident has been signposted to raise any concerns about the right to buy process with the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman.

Summary of Events

As set out in the Jurisdiction section of this report, this Service previously considered a complaint from the resident. It concluded in its determination of 14 August 2018 that the landlord:
1. had agreed on 3 November 2016 to remove a lean-to to allow the EWI works to proceed, after which it would reinstate ‘the existing lean-to plate’ and install flashing above it to accommodate a roof covering (and the resident would arrange for the remainder of the lean-to to be reinstated, including roof, doors, infill panels and any masonry required)
2. had not been able to find agreement with the resident on the methodology of works to reinstate the lean-to despite correspondence between them during May 2017 to January 2018
3. had ‘made a reasonable offer to meet its part of the agreement’
4. had implicitly agreed that the resident was responsible for reinstatement of the lean-to but that it would be responsible for rectification ‘if the lean-to cannot be reinstated (i.e. to substantially its original state) because of the way it was removed, the technical qualities of the reinstated wall plate, or the alternative to the original flashing’
5. was the warranty holder for the EWI so there was no adverse affect on the resident in regard to potential impact of the lean-to works on the warranty
6. should complete any work which is outstanding (but not dependent on resolution of the lean-to complaint) as soon as possible.
This Service offered further clarification to both parties on 10 December 2018 that no orders had been made regarding the lean-to and that it was reasonable for the landlord ‘to reinstall the wall plate such that (the resident) could reasonably reinstate the lean-to’ and that the resident ‘is then responsible for installing the lean-to’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 August 2019 in response to questions it understood the resident had asked its contractor about the impact on the EWI guarantee of proposed works to reinstate the lean-to. It noted that the resident wished to have a lean-to door reinstated as it was and that this would require extensive alterations to the EWI surface which would affect the guarantee. It asked the resident to advise it how she wished to proceed.
The landlord’s internal emails show that it liaised with the EWI manufacturer on 23 August 2019 to check that its proposed contractor was on their approved list.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2019, following a visit by the landlord’s contractors. She noted that the contractor had proposed to cut away part of the EWI system so timber supports could be fitted to allow for lean-to doors to be reinstated. The resident asked what the impact of this would be on the EWI guarantee given she was due to pursue a right to buy and advised the landlord to let her know if the lean-to could not be reinstated without impacting the guarantee.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 September 2019. It advised the resident that its contractor was authorised to install and repair EWI systems.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 October 2019. It advised that approved installers were needed to work on the EWI system to retain the guarantee and that it was working with such an installer to carry out works that would allow the resident to reinstate the lean-to roof. It added that delays had been partly caused by the resident not accepting its proposed methodology of works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 October 2019. It apologised that the works were taking so long to organise but said that it had liaised with its contractor and the EWI manufacturer in an attempt to ensure guarantees would be in place for the future.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 October 2019, regarding an appointment between its contractors and the resident. It included a reference to it having consulted with the EWI manufacturer to ensure any work would be guaranteed.
The landlord’s contractor issued an eight-year EWI guarantee dated 3 December 2019 for works it had completed to the side elevation. The landlord later advised that the works completed during this period were as follows (contemporaneous emails between it and its contractor support this):
1. application of EWI topcoat to the gable wall
2. reinstatement of the lean-to wall plate with a flashing above to accommodate the lean-to roof covering
3. fixing of vertical lean-to timber door supports to the face of the EWI
4. fitting of a new canopy over the front door
5. fixing of a new washing line to the rear elevation.
The resident raised concerns with the landlord on 17 December 2019 that the landlord’s contractor had put nails into the EWI system when installing flashing.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 17 January 2020 regarding a planned inspection visit. The landlord advised that it would liaise with the EWI manufacturer to get comments on the flashing.
The landlord and resident exchanged emails on 23 January 2020, following an inspection. The landlord advised that works to the EWI system and wall plate had been conducted in accordance, and following consultation, with the EWI manufacturer. It offered to either visit the property to assess the need for any remedial works required or to award compensation but not complete any further works.
The landlord’s internal records show a post-inspection was completed. It recorded its observations on 24 January 2020 when it raised queries with its contractor about what the flashing had been nailed to, the compatibility of products used with the original wall surface and whether the works could have invalidated the EWI guarantee.
The contractor reverted to the landlord on 24 January 2020 to answer its post-inspection queries. It advised that the nails to the flashing were used while silicone was going off, the flashing detail was in accordance with EWI works, the timber used for the doors to attach to was compatible with the EWI system, the finish was in accordance with EWI manufacturer recommendations and, although its works should not have invalidated the manufacturer guarantee, it could not comment further on this.
The resident has advised this Service that she submitted a right to buy application on 4 February 2020 (and that the landlord completed a valuation on 27 July 2020).
The landlord recorded that it wrote to the resident on 17 February 2020 and advised that the works to the EWI and lean-to plate were in line with the Ombudsman’s recommendations. It offered to inspect again to agree any remedial works required or to negotiate a compensation payment with no further work undertaken.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 March 2020 – it sought a reply to its earlier email that it advised it had sent on 17 February 2020.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 March 2020. She advised that the right to buy process had begun in December 2019 with the forms completed on 4 February 2020. She queried who exactly would attend to assess the remedial works needed to the EWI and that a right to buy valuation survey was imminent.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 March 2020. It repeated its request that the resident make a choice between the two options it presented on 17 February 2020.
The resident replied on 23 March 2020. She explained that, due to the right to buy application, she had been told that no works would be done at the property by the landlord. She queried if the compensation would include amounts for the lean-to and the loss of the 25-year guarantee and that these should be factored into the valuation survey.
Internal emails between the landlord and its contractor during late April to early May 2020 indicate that the former sought assurance from the latter on materials used during late 2019. The contractor advised that EWI manufacturer products were used apart from a particular detail around the lean-to plate where an equivalent product was used.
The resident sought information from the landlord during late August-early September 2020. As part of these email exchanges, the landlord advised the resident on 14 September 2020 that the EWI manufacturer had told it ‘that the warranty will remain intact so long as the repairs that were implemented do not lead to the failure of the system’.
The resident completed an online complaint form dated 6 October 2020. She said that exterior works to the property were unsatisfactory and outstanding. She also mentioned that she had made a right to buy application and that there was an issue with the lack of guarantee on the EWI works and illegal removal of a lean-to.
The resident made a request on 19 October 2020 for the landlord to arrange an inspection by the EWI manufacturer. The landlord advised the resident on 20 October 2020 that it had left a message for the manufacturer with a view to arranging the inspection and added on 21 October 2020 that the inspection would occur on 3 November 2020.
The resident obtained a property surveyor’s report on 26 October 2020 following a private inspection that she organised for 1 October 2020. This noted that the survey was undertaken with a view to the resident purchasing the property. It made the following relevant findings:
1. there was a half-built lean-to to the right-hand side of the property
2. in order to complete the lean-to, ‘you will need to either to build a completely self-supporting separate structure, that is then abutted to the main building, and the insulation be replaced, subject to the manufacturer’s agreement, or have a manufacturer approved detail that allows you to fix through the insulation’
3. the resident should obtain more information about ventilation of the roof to prevent condensation, including whether pre-formed vents have been used to the soffits and whether old soffits have been cladded over
4. the resident should pursue the landlord for a guarantee on the EWI works as cold bridging due to the timber lean-to plate could impact it.
The landlord issued a stage one complaint response to the resident on 16 October 2020. It concluded that:
1. it did not agree that the lean-to had been illegally removed and it had complied with the Ombudsman determination of 14 August 2018 by adjusting the wall plate to allow the installation of roof rafters
2. as a gesture of goodwill, it had also made ‘suitable adjustments’ to the EWI to allow for installation of the lean-to doors
3. there had been some minor snagging works to finish but the majority of works were complete so a guarantee was issued from 30 March 2017
4. this guarantee was valid for 25 years and the manufacturer had advised that ‘the warranty will remain intact so long as the repairs that were implemented do not lead to the failure of the system’
5. there was also an eight-year guarantee from the contractor who had attended in October-December 2019 ‘in association with the works to allow the reinstallation of the lean-to’
6. it had delayed in carrying out repairs to the EWI to allow the lean-to reinstatement so it offered £250 compensation for the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 19 October 2020 on the grounds that:
1. the manufacturers of the EWI system should check it to ensure the 25-year warranty was in place but the landlord had caused delays
2. she had a right to know if the guarantee was valid given their right to buy application
3. the snagging works had been major, not minor, and included leaving a 16-foot-wide old timber wall plate exposed to the elements from January 2017 to December 2020 so the March 2017 guarantee was invalid
4. the original contractor had not been informed of the lean-to reinstatement plan
5. the landlord had caused a delay from August 2018 to October 2019 in completing works and had not post-inspected them
6. the second contractor who issued an eight-year guarantee had invalidated the original 25-year EWI guarantee by its repairs and the products it used
7. EWI repairs were still needed to fascia and soffit boards as works had been incorrectly carried out in 2019
8. she could not reinstate the lean-to because the gable end wall sections would invalidate the EWI warranty.
The EWI manufacturer produced a report dated 5 November 2020 following an inspection of the property. The report showed some issues with the EWI system:
1. there was a large gap visible on the roofline interfacing with the soffit that should be filled and sealed
2. a gap was visible in the sealant along the soffit line
3. a satellite dish fixing had left exposed holes into the wall
4. flashing to the lean-to area was loose and water penetration into the wall was possible at the points of fixing and it is not something the manufacturer would recommend
5. it viewed photographs of a recess within the wall exposing a timber wall plate that the lean-to would be fixed to but it was not clear if the timber had been treated and it had been encapsulated with a product that was not within its specification
6. channels had been cut into the wall to allow for a gate post but non-specified products had again been used
7. it could not provide a warranty on the gable end wall
8. the ‘front and rear elevations require some attention to rectify the issues raised in the report, once these remedial works have been carried out then a warranty will be valid for these elevations’.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 November 2020. It provided a copy of the above EWI manufacturer report and advised the resident that it could liaise with the manufacturer to resolve the defects identified in the report. It offered to obtain a specification and quote of works and either carry out the works (if the resident wished to end their right to buy application) or pay the resident the quoted amount (if she wished to continue with the right to buy).
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 12 November 2020. It concluded that:
1. the EWI manufacturer had inspected and determined that the works carried out by the contractor in October-December 2019 had likely invalidated the 25-year guarantee for that wall of the property
2. it apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s concerns about the validity of the original guarantee and should have informed her that the only guarantee it could offer was the eight-year one provided by the second contractor
3. as the owner of the property, it was able to take decisions on the risks in conducting works and consider issues such as ‘the cost of additional work to allow continuation of the warranty based against the risk of the system failing and cost of subsequent repairs’
4. it would not make any further decision on responsibility for reinstatement of the lean-to as that had already been subject to an Ombudsman determination
5. it apologised again for its delay with installing the lean-to plate but advised it had arranged the work in good faith and had been assured that the work would be compliant with the EWI system
6. it was satisfied that the resident now had information to allow her to decide on how to proceed with her right to buy application
7. it would contact her about any further works or actions needed as a result of the EWI manufacturer inspection
8. it offered increased compensation of £400 for the delays in completing works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 November 2020. She raised concerns that:
1. the EWI manufacturer report only referred to the EWI guarantee and that her own private report demonstrated additional issues with the lean-to and fascia and soffits
2. there were three lean-to plates all laid over each other (and the old plate had suffered from rot) and the flashing had been nailed through and not applied correctly
3. the landlord had incorrectly told her that it had liaised with the EWI manufacturer prior to the October-December 2019 works
4. it would be unwise for her to allow the landlord to carry out works to put right the defects identified by the EWI manufacturer
5. the landlord should deduct the loss of the EWI warranty and the lean-to from the right to buy valuation or it should carry out works to reinstate the EWI warranty but also include reinstatement of the lean-to and fascia and soffit works as part of this.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s comments on 18 November 2020.
The resident wrote further to the landlord on 26 November 2020. She said she had attached her own surveyor’s report (from October 2020) and raised continued concern that:
1. they were now buying a property with a 25-year EWI guarantee that no longer existed
2. the landlord could claim back the costs of the guarantee invalidation from the second contractor and the costs of the EWI damage from the contractor who had carried out soffit works
3. the EWI manufacturer report showed that works were also needed to the front and rear elevations
4. the resident’s own survey also showed other issues with the lean-to structure, fascia, soffits, roof ventilation and cold bridging
5. the works that the Ombudsman had previously recommended the landlord complete in August 2018 were not carried out until October-December 2019 and the landlord had failed to adequately post-inspect these works
6. when the landlord did review the works, it advised the resident in March 2020 that it could attend again to agree remedial work with her or negotiate a compensation offer (and not carry out further works).
The landlord advised the resident on 27 November 2020 that it was still considering her email of 16 November 2020. It noted that she had expressed that she would continue the right to buy process.
The resident chased the landlord for an outcome on 1 December 2020 and 11 December 2020. The landlord explained that its legal department was considering the matter but the resident warned the landlord on 18 December 2020 that the right to buy was at risk of being cancelled due to the delay.
The landlord advised the resident on 18 December 2020 that the two options it presented to the resident on 12 November 2020 remained open but that the resident should proceed with the right to buy if she wished. The resident replied the same day – she disputed that there were two realistic options and added that the EWI guarantee on all elevations had been invalidated.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 December 2020. She chased an outcome but advised that the right to buy acceptance form had been sent the previous week and that she would claim back costs for bringing action about the lean-to and invalidated EWI guarantee.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 January 2021. This contained the legal advice it advised it had obtained and set out that:
1. it had rejected the resident’s request to reduce the property valuation
2. it reiterated its offer of £400 but indicated that this was for the delay in clarifying the EWI guarantee position
3. it would work with the EWI manufacturer to properly specify and price works to repair the EWI and pay this to the resident once the right to buy was finalised
4. it proposed to pay the resident £1,000 for the cost of her reinstating the lean-to once the EWI repairs were undertaken.
The resident and landlord exchanged emails between 21-26 January 2021. The resident asked the landlord questions around why the original contractor had not completed lean-to works in accordance with the agreement of 3 November 2016 and the landlord referred the resident to its offer of 6 January 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 January 2021. She advised that she was claiming ‘consequential damages’ for the removal of the lean-to and repeated her concerns about what the landlord’s contractors had done and the invalidation of the EWI guarantee for all elevations.
The resident wrote to the landlord again on 17 February 2021. She set out that she was seeking £20,000 damages for the landlord invalidating the EWI guarantee plus £10,000 for the removal of the lean-to.
The landlord’s legal department replied to the resident on 17 February 2021. It offered to engage in mediation prior to court action.
The resident replied to the landlord on 18 February 2021. She confirmed her claim for £30,000 and offered to purchase the property for an amount that took this into account.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

Be fair
Put things right
Learn from outcomes

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The resident has advised during the course of her complaint with the landlord that she is seeking damages. The Ombudsman cannot order damages as that would be for a court to decide on. Nevertheless, this Service can make orders of compensation where there has been maladministration that has had an impact on a resident such as distress, inconvenience or time and trouble.

Works to allow reinstatement of lean-to

There was a delay between August 2018 and December 2019 in the landlord carrying out works that it had agreed to complete and which the Ombudsman recommended in its determination of August 2018 – these works were for the landlord to reinstate the existing lean-to wall plate and install flashing. Although there were further works added to this (including the installation of supports for the lean-to doors) and there was a period August-October 2019 when the landlord was checking the potential impact of the works on the EWI system, there was still an unreasonable delay of more than 12 months in the landlord completing the lean-to plate and flashing works.
The landlord apologised for this delay during the complaints process and awarded compensation of £400 in recognition of the inconvenience caused to the resident as a result. The delay will inevitably have caused uncertainty to the resident as to when they would be able to restore the lean-to and meant that there were several occasions when the resident had to chase progress. Nevertheless, the compensation award of £400 is in the range recommended within the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs’ and is at a level that the Ombudsman would expect where a landlord has delayed in delivering a service and caused unnecessary time and trouble to a resident.
After the landlord’s contractor completed the lean-to plate and flashing works in December 2019, the resident raised concerns about the quality of these works. The landlord responded by post-inspecting the repairs in January 2020 and making enquiries with the contractor – these were reasonable actions to take in response to the resident’s concerns.
The subsequent discussions between the landlord and resident during the period January 2020 to February 2021 were mainly focused on the impact of the lean-to works on the EWI guarantee. The resident’s position seemed to be that she could not reinstate the lean-to because of the further potential impact on the EWI guarantee. The landlord made an offer in February 2020 to again inspect the works to determine what remedial action was needed or to agree a compensation figure – this was a reasonable approach to take given it was unclear at that point if it was possible for the resident to reinstate the lean-to.
The resident’s private report of October 2020 suggested that the lean-to would need to be self-supporting and abutted to the gable end wall. However, the report does not conclude that the landlord failed to reinstate the existing lean-to plate and install flashing – these were the only lean-to works that the November 2016 obliged the landlord to complete.
The November 2020 EWI manufacturer report did raise concern about the lean-to plate and flashing but this was again in reference to the EWI rather than the possibility of reinstating the lean-to. Nevertheless, the landlord offered the same month to either complete remedial works (which would likely have included the lean-to plate and flashing) or to pay the resident the value of these works – this demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused.
The resident raised concerns in November 2020 about the lean-to plate – she indicated that the landlord’s approach to apply a lean-to plate over an old one was incorrect. In response, the landlord repeated its offer to either complete remedial works or reimburse the resident to the value of these works – this was a reasonable attempt to put things right for the resident.
The landlord referred the matter to its legal department and a further offer was made to the resident in January 2021. It said that it was willing to make payment to the resident of £1,000 towards the cost of reinstating the lean-to in addition to the figure it and the EWI manufacturer would calculate for the EWI remedial works. This offer was again in excess of what the landlord agreed to in November 2016 and demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and considered the length of time the matter had gone on for.
In summary, that there was unreasonable delay between August 2018 and December 2019 in the landlord reinstating the existing lean-to plate and installing flashing as the November 2016 agreement required (and the August 2018 Ombudsman determination recommended). However, the combination of the landlord’s apologies and £400 compensation award represented appropriate redress for this failure. Since it completed these works in December 2019, it has also made further reasonable offers to address the resident’s continued concerns about her ability to reinstate the lean-to.

Guarantee

Based on evidence seen by this Service, the resident raised new concerns at least as early as August 2019 about the potential of the lean-to works to impact the EWI guarantee. The landlord was the guarantee holder for the EWI so the adverse affect on the resident of this matter was limited. However, given the resident made a right to buy application in February 2020, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer clarity on this point. It is not disputed that the landlord delayed in doing so until November 2020 when it arranged for the EWI manufacturer to attend and offer a view on the guarantee – it apologised for this in its final complaint response.
Between August 2019 and November 2020 (when the matter exhausted the landlord’s complaints process), the landlord gave various answers to the resident on the guarantee issue:
1. it advised her in August 2019 that alterations to the EWI surface would affect the guarantee
2. it implied in October 2019 that using EWI manufacturer approved contractors would protect the guarantee
3. it indicated in October 2019 that it had consulted with the EWI manufacturer but the only evidence of this seen by this Service was its contact with them to source an approved contractor (there is no evidence that it discussed a specification of works with the EWI manufacturer)
4. it advised in September-October 2020 that the EWI manufacturer had told it the guarantee would be valid as long as any repairs did not cause the system to fail
5. it eventually confirmed in November 2020, following the EWI manufacturer report, that the guarantee was invalid.

It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to offer consistent advice to the resident during this period of 15 months, particularly after the resident made her right to buy application. This will inevitably have caused concern and inconvenience to the resident given her intention to purchase the property and meant that she was not fully aware of the status of the EWI guarantee when she commenced the right to buy process.

When the landlord arranged for the matter to be reviewed by its legal team in January 2021, it again acknowledged the delay in providing clarity on the EWI guarantee situation. It advised that this was why it had awarded £400 compensation. However, the landlord’s final complaint response had already outlined that the £400 compensation award related to its delay in carrying out works to allow the reinstatement of the lean-to. The landlord therefore failed to offer any redress to the resident for the failure in its handling of her concerns about the validity of the EWI guarantee beyond its apology – this was unreasonable.
Since the end of the complaints process, the landlord has offered to work with the EWI manufacturer to obtain a quote to put right the EWI system and make payment of this to the resident should she take ownership of the property. This was a reasonable attempt on the part of the landlord to assure the resident that it was willing to take steps to put right the EWI system even though the right to buy process was ongoing.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in offering clarity to the resident on her concerns about the EWI guarantee. It apologised for this delay but has not offered sufficient redress to the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the failures identified in its handling of works it had agreed to complete to allow the reinstatement of the lean-to.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the validity of a guarantee for external wall insulation (EWI) works.

Reasons

The landlord delayed between August 2018 and December 2019 in completing the works it agreed to in November 2016. However, the landlord has accepted and apologised for this delay and its compensation offer of £400 was fair given the circumstances of the case.
The landlord failed to provide clarity to the resident in response to her enquiries about the validity of the EWI guarantee between August 2019 and November 2020, even after her right to buy application in February 2020.

Orders

The landlord to write to the resident to apologise for the maladministration identified in this report.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 in recognition of the time and trouble and inconvenience caused to her by the maladministration in its handling of her concerns about the validity of a guarantee for external wall insulation (EWI) works.

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

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £400 that it offered in its final complaint response in recognition of the failings in its handling of works it had agreed to complete to allow the reinstatement of the lean-to.
The landlord to ensure it has procedures in place to check the potential impact on external wall insulation guarantees of any repairs it undertakes at its properties.

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