Onward Homes Limited (202117573)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117573

Onward Group Limited

29 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s requests for information about a charge on the land registry title deeds.
2. Handing of the fire risk assessment.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a shared owner and became the leaseholder of the property at the time of the complaint. The property is a flat and is one of six within a small block, which will be referred to as the block in this report. The resident sublet the property to a tenant. The landlord is a housing association.
Under the lease the resident ‘covenants’, or agrees, to observe, perform, and indemnify the landlord in relations to any covenants entered as charges on the title deeds for the land on which the property is located. The resident also agrees to pay service charges under the lease.
The Law Society’s Conveyancing Protocol sets out the steps solicitors should take when acting for a buyer or seller of a property. The protocol says that one of the first steps a buyer’s solicitor should take is to advise the buyer about obtaining searches and conducting these.
The landlord has a fire safety policy and management plan, which will be referred to as the fire policy in this report. The fire policy says that it complies with the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 and Housing Act 2004.
Under the policy the landlord will carry out fire safety inspections (FRAs) at pre-determined intervals. Flats are categorised as either high risk (inspected once a year), medium risk (inspected every three years) or low risk (inspected every five years). Any actions arising from an FRA are categorised as management, compliance, or repair, and have set timeframes to be completed based on level of risk. Timeframes range from within 24 hours to 6 months. The policy says that for fire doors a poster will be displayed in communal areas showing what to check for and how to report defects with fire doors; the policy contains an example of the poster. The policy says a “stay put” policy will be considered for purpose built and converted blocks based on fire risk assessments.
The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” The policy says that the landlord will try to resolve a complaint during first contact with the resident, but if it cannot it operates a two stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within two working days and respond within ten working days; if it cannot do this it will keep the resident informed. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can ask to escalate their complaint to stage two. The landlord will acknowledge the escalation within two working days and the complaint will be investigated by one of the landlord’s directors. The landlord will provide a stage two response within ten working days but will keep the resident informed if it needs more time to do this. The policy says if the resident remains dissatisfied, they can approach this Service.

Summary of events

The resident purchased a shared ownership lease for 75% of the property and became a tenant for the remaining 25% on 19 October 2006. The original lease was first created on 2 February 2005.
On 23 March 2017 a fire risk assessor, contracted by the landlord, completed an FRA of the block, and produced a report. A copy of the report has been provided to this Service and will be referred to as the first FRA.
The landlord contracted a different fire risk assessor, via a national company, who carried out an FRA on 16 February 2021 and produced a report. A copy of this report has also been provided to this Service and will be referred to as the second FRA.
Within the first FRA and the second FRA the following was noted:
1. In 2017 the FRA recommended all flat doors were checked and fitted with self-closing devises to ensure doors closed. In 2021 the sample flat door inspected had a self-closer, but it was not closing the door fully. It was recommended that all door self-closers were checked and repaired or adjusted so that doors closed fully.
2. The 2017 FRA said that communal fire doors did not have smoke seals, suitable hinges and that some hinge screws were missing. It recommended installing smoke seals, changing the hinges, and replacing the screws. In 2021 the FRA said that there were still no smoke seals on the communal fire doors, and that screws were still missing from door hinges; it recommended these issues were rectified.
3. In 2017 the FRA said it had not been possible to access individual flats but recommended the landlord gain access to individual flats to check the automatic fire detection and that a minimum grade system was provided. In 2021 only one flat was accessed as part of the FRA but there was no mention of level of fire detection.
4. The 2017 the FRA recommended that the landlord inspect fire precautions and have a recording system for this. In 2021 the FRA recorded trip hazards within the communal area escape route. This was resident’s personal belongings having been left in the communal area. The FRA recommended regular inspections were put in place by the landlord to keep the communal areas clear.
5. In 2017 the FRA recommended that the landlord produce an emergency plan, which should be shared with residents and regularly reviewed. It warned that “without appropriate procedures in the event of a fire, the fire may take hold and the safety of residents may be compromised.” The 2021 FRA notes that it was not known if any information or contact details were made available to residents, to be able to speak to the landlord to get help to develop a person emergency evacuation plan, or other fire safety advice. It recommended the landlord add contact details and information to notices, or use leaflets, letters, or its website to promote this information.
On 11 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to ask several questions about the second FRA. The landlord replied by email on 22 June 2021 and answered the resident’s questions. These questions were about:
1. Why the national company had been chosen for the second FRA.
  1. The landlord replied that the company chosen was “a national multi-disciplined building surveying company and regarded as one of the top companies providing fire risk assessments in the country.”
2. The frequency of FRAs.
  1. The landlord replied that FRAs are carried out on a cycle based on size and height of the block and the residents housed. For high-risk blocks it was every year, medium risk every two years and low risk every three years. Low risk blocks were up to three stories high housing general needs residents.
3. Items left in communal areas of the block.
  1. The landlord said that it inspected the block monthly, if items were found in communal areas, and the owner was known, then it would speak to the owner to ask them to remove the items. When the owner was not known the landlord wrote to all residents before removing the items.
4. The landlord’s ‘stay put’ policy and checking of flat fire doors.
  1. The landlord confirmed there was a stay put policy for general needs purpose-built blocks. The guidance was out for government consultation with an expectation that residents would be responsible for letting their landlord know if they would not be able to evacuate. There was a poster in the communal area asking resident to, and explaining how to, check their flat front doors and report any faults. The landlord would also be starting twice yearly checks of front doors.
5. Issues raised within the FRA and who was going to pay for door closers, intumescent strips, and smoke seals on doors.
  1. The landlord said checks would be carried out and any repairs carried out “in accordance with the lease.”
6. Lack of fire extinguishers.
  1. The landlord confirmed that national guidance was not to provide fire extinguishers in communal areas, as no-one on site would have been trained how to use them or which type to use based on the type of fire.
On 22 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. She said during the process of buying the remaining 25% of the lease she was made aware of a yearly rent charge of £72. 14s. 2d. as a land charge on the land registry title deeds for the block, which will be referred to in this report as the rent charge. The resident said the rent charge was not mentioned in her lease and asked who was responsible for paying this. She also asked about fire door smoke seals and when these would be fitted, and when other FRA works would be completed. She said that all these issues were causing her distress, inconvenience, and costs.
The landlord replied on 23 June 2021 and said that the resident should seek advice from her solicitor about the rent charge, who could contact the landlord’s solicitor if needed.
On 24 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again about the rent charge. She said her solicitor and mortgage advisor had discovered the rent charge on the title deed charge register, but that it was not mentioned in her lease. She said that this had caused difficulty in finding a mortgage to buy the remaining 25% share. She said the landlord knew about the rent charge when it first created the lease and asked why it had not mentioned it.
The landlord replied to the resident the following day to say that it was standard practice for solicitors to deal with queries relating to conveyancing and it was not suggesting she seek additional advice but that she already had instructed solicitors. It also said, “the solicitor that represented you in your original purchase of the property would be responsible for talking you through the lease and explaining your rights and responsibilities, as well as making you aware of any charges on title which would have any implications for you at the point of re-sale, final staircasing or otherwise.”
On 9 July 2021 and 15 July 2021, the resident and landlord exchanged further emails about the rent charge and the FRA works. In the emails:
1. The resident:
  1. Said that the landlord’s solicitors had said the landlord had never been charged the rent charge and did not have indemnity insurance for it.
  2. Objected to paying for indemnity insurance herself.
  3. Asked for further information about the rent charge.
  4. Said that the landlord was at fault for not mentioning or including the rent charge within the lease.
  5. Said she wanted a response to her concerns about the FRA works.
2. The landlord said that its solicitors had answered the resident’s questions, that it was for the buyer’s solicitors to check for charges on the deed and that the suggestion of indemnity insurance was a reasonable one. It also said it was still investigating the resident’s enquiry about the FRA works.
Following emails between the resident’s solicitor and the landlord’s solicitor, on 22 July 2021 the landlord agreed to pay for indemnity insurance for the rent charge.
The resident sent a letter to the landlord dated 30 July 2021, which the landlord received on 2 August 2021. The landlord decided to treat the resident’s letter as a stage one complaint. In the letter the resident:
1. Questioned the cost for lightbulbs.
2. Asked why a national company had been used to provide the second FRA.
3. Said both the first FRA and the second FRA recommended intumescent strips and smoke seals for doors and asked when these works were going to be done. She said that leaseholders should not be charged for this as they should have been installed when the block was built.
4. Said that fire extinguishers should be provided for “peace of mind”.
5. Raised the issue of the rent charge, that the landlord should have made her aware of this and included it in the lease. She said it had affected mortgage offers and that the landlord had agreed to pay for indemnity insurance but that it had not done so.
On 9 August 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge her complaint. The landlord apologised for its delay in registering the complaint and said it aimed to respond within ten working days, by 23 August 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 August 2021 to chase its complaint response.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 24 August 2021. In its response it said:
1. The cost of lightbulbs was reasonable.
2. The national company it had contracted for the second FRA was a specialist and it had chosen it via a competitive tender process.
3. The block had been signed off as meeting planning requirements when it was built. Any works recommended in an FRA would be completed and charged to the leaseholders as per their leases.
4. Fire guidance and the second FRA did not require fire extinguishers to be provided in communal areas.
5. The rent charge had been on the title deeds for the block and dated back to 1873. It should have been pointed out by the resident’s solicitor when she first bought her share of the lease. The landlord had agreed to pay for indemnity insurance “solely to put an end to the repeated contact from you on this matter and not through any obligation to do so.”
The response said the resident could contact the landlord within ten days if she had “any questions or wish[ed] to discuss anything further” and gave information on how to contact this Service.
On the same day, 24 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say that it was obvious to her that the landlord was not going to escalate her complaint to stage two of its process. The landlord replied and said it did not understand why the resident believed this as it had only just provided its stage one response that day.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2021. She said she had not mentioned the word complaint in her letter. The complaint response had not mentioned stage two of the process. She asked about a stage 1.5 from a previous complaint which was not included in its policy. The resident repeated the questions she had asked in her letter and that she still wanted the landlord to answer them.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to respond to her email. It explained that stage 1.5 was where it “attempts to re-engage with a customer if they remain dissatisfied, for example to answer queries raised” following a stage one response. It said it believed it was most appropriate to treat the resident’s letter as a complaint. The landlord answered the resident’s questions with the answers it provided within its stage one response.
The following day the resident emailed the landlord again. She said stage 1.5 does not exist and that she would bring this to the Ombudsman’s attention. She also raised issues within her complaint again including about outstanding FRA works and the rent charge. She said that her solicitors had asked for information from the landlord’s but had not been provided with this.
On 8 October 2021 in an internal email the landlord said that it had escalated the resident’s complaint. The landlord emailed the resident on the same day to say that it had escalated her complaint and allocated it to a director to investigate at stage two.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 9 October 2021 and set out again the issues she wanted the landlord to resolve.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord provided its stage two response. In its response it:
1. Apologised for the way it had approached FRA actions previously and said that it had restructured its approach. FRA actions were now actioned within the recommended timeframes.
2. Said that matters relating to the rent charge were for the resident’s solicitor to investigate and it would not provide any further information.
3. Agreed it had offered to pay for indemnity insurance as a goodwill gesture and said that this was being arranged via solicitors.
4. Said that the rent charge was a registered charge on the title deeds at the time the resident bought her share of the lease in 2006 and that it was not for the landlord to have brought this charge to her attention at the time.
5. Gave details on how to contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 22 October 2021 and repeated her complaint which the landlord had replied to at stage two. The resident chased a response to her email on 27 October 2021.
On or after 27 October 2021, the landlord replied to the resident’s email. The copy of the reply provided to this Service is undated. In its reply the landlord said that its solicitors were instructed in the sale of the remaining 25% of the lease to the resident and not about the rent charge. The landlord was, via its solicitors, in the process of paying for the indemnity insurance.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 2 November 2021.
On 14 December 2021 the resident’s solicitor confirmed that the landlord had paid for the indemnity insurance.
The resident has told this Service that she has since sold the lease for the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about a charge on the land registry title deeds

When the resident bought her 75% share of the lease in 2006, she instructed solicitors to complete the purchase. In June 2021 the resident was in the process of buying the remaining 25% of her lease, to go from being a shared owner to a leaseholder. She had instructed solicitors who had discovered a rent charge, which was registered as a land charge on the land registry title deeds for the block. The resident then questioned this with the landlord on 22 June 2021.
The landlord first directed the resident to seek assistance from her solicitor, which was a reasonable response. When the resident asked further questions, the landlord explained that it would have been the responsibility of the resident’s solicitors to have searched for and explained any land charges when she first purchased her 75% share. This is correct and is set out within the Conveyancing Protocol as well as being accepted standard legal practice.
The resident’s solicitor suggested that the resident take out indemnity insurance, which was a reasonable approach. After further emails the landlord agreed to pay for this insurance, which was solution focused and showed it wanted to resolve the issue, even though it was not obliged to do so.
Within her stage one complaint on 30 July 2021 the resident raised the issue of the rent charge and the landlord’s response was in line with what it had previously said. The landlord confirmed it was an old rent charge and it had agreed to pay for indemnity insurance for the resident. In its stage two response the landlord repeated its stage one response.
The landlord was not responsible for bringing the rent charge to the resident’s attention and it was reasonable for it to have assumed that the resident’s solicitor would have done this. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer the resident to her own solicitors for advice. It agreed to pay for indemnity insurance when it had no obligation to, although it did delay in paying for this, which was caused by delays with its solicitors. The landlord acted fairly and reasonably, and there was no maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the fire risk assessment

The landlord carried out FRAs in 2017 and 2021. Under the landlord’s policy FRAs for the type of block the property is in should be carried out every three years and so a FRA should have been carried out in March 2020. The Covid-19 pandemic lockdown started on 26 March 2020 and so it is understandable that there may have been a delay to the second FRA. However, there is no evidence the FRA had been arranged for March 2020, prior to the lockdown being announced. Lockdown measures were eased later in 2020 and safety checks were still allowed to continue, especially considering entry into resident’s flats was not required. The second FRA did not take place until 16 February 2021 which was an unreasonable delay. Resident safety, at a time when residents were required to stay at home, should have been prioritised.
The landlord’s policy says that it will carry out FRA actions within timeframes based on the type of action and level of risk. The resident raised as part of her complaint that actions recommended following the first FRA were not completed, namely repairs to the communal doors and fitting of smoke seals for flat front doors.
After considering the first FRA and the second FRA, several recommendations remained outstanding as set out earlier in this report. In summary these were:
1. Fitting and checking flat door self-closers.
2. Fitting smoke seals to communal doors and replacing screws.
3. Inspecting for fire precaution.
4. Producing and emergency plan which should be shared with residents.
It is clear that the landlord did not carry out the 2017 FRA recommendations. In its stage one response on 24 August 2021 the landlord said that it would carry out the FRA recommendations. In its stage two response, on 21 October 2021, the landlord apologised for the way it had handled FRA recommendations ‘historically’. It said it had since restructured its team and approach, and that FRA recommendations were now completed within the recommended timeframes. This response showed that it had accepted it had been at fault previously, had learned from this and wanted to put things right. However, the landlord did not confirm at that time that it had completed the recommendations set out within the second FRA.
The Ombudsman notes that there is a difference in the timeframes set out for completing FRA recommendations within its policy and within the FRA report which could cause confusion to residents. It would be helpful if the landlord’s policy clearly stated its own policy timeframes are its target for completing FRA recommendations, or these timeframes were included within FRA reports. If the recommendations had not been carried out at the date of the resident’s first complaint, and there is no evidence that they were, the landlord exceeded its policy timeframes and that was a failing.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the FRA, which caused distress, time, and trouble to the resident. An order has been made that the landlord pay £400 in compensation to reflect this.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The resident made her stage one complaint by letter dated 30 July 2021 received by the landlord on 2 August 2021. Following the landlord’s acknowledgement on 9 August 2021, the resident emailed it to say that she had not made a complaint and had not used the word complaint in her letter. The landlord replied to explain that as the resident’s letter showed an expression of dissatisfaction it had decided to record it as a complaint. This was the correct thing for the landlord to have done and was in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s acknowledgement was outside of its two working day timeframe however it did apologise for this. It said it would provide its stage one response by 23 August 2021, which was ten working days after the acknowledgement. The landlord provided its response on 24 August 2021, which was 16 working days after it received the resident’s complaint, which was outside of its policy timeframe of ten working days. The response said the resident could contact the landlord within ten days if she had “any questions or wish[ed] to discuss anything further”, however did not explain that she could ask for her complaint to be escalated or what the next stage of the complaints process was. This is a requirement under paragraph 5.8 of the Code.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day she received her stage one response to say that it was not going to escalate her complaint. The landlord replied and invited her to request escalation if she was dissatisfied with its stage one response.
On 26 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the stage one response did not mention how to escalate the complaint. She also asked about a stage 1.5, which she had heard of from a previous complaint. The landlord’s reply explained that stage 1.5 was its attempt to reengaged with the resident. The landlord’s policy does not contain a stage 1.5 in its process, and it is not clear to this Service where this stage had come from or whether it was an internal process rather than an official complaint stage. However, reference to it within the landlord’s response caused further confusion and frustration to the resident and was a failing. After the resident sent a further email on 7 October 2021 the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint to stage two on 8 October 2021. As the resident had clearly communicated her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage one response on the day she received it, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have escalated her complaint immediately rather than to have delayed.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 21 October 2021, which was within ten working days in line with its policy. The landlord also gave details on how the resident could contact this Service.
Overall, there was maladministration. The landlord’s stage one response was outside of its timeframe, it did not make it clear how to escalate the complaint and gave confusing information about its complaint stages. It also delayed in escalating the complaint. To recognise the further inconvenience, time, and trouble these failing had an order has been made that the landlord pay £200 in compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the fire risk assessment.
2. Complaints handling.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s requests for information about a charge on the land registry title deeds.

Reasons

There was maladministration as the landlord had not carried out the first FRA recommendations. It also failed to carry out the recommendations form the second FRA within its policy timeframes. In addition, it was not clear for residents that the landlord should have used its policy timeframes rather that those set out within the FRA report to complete the recommendations by.
There was maladministration as the landlord did not respond to the stage one complaint within its timeframe, did not clearly say how the resident could escalate her complaint and gave confusing information about a stage which did not exist within its complaints process. It also delayed in escalating her complaint.
The was no maladministration as the landlord was not responsible for providing legal advice to the resident. Its response referring the resident to her own solicitors was reasonable. It agreed to pay for insurance, which it was not obligated to do, to try to solve the issue for the resident.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £600 made up of:
  1. £400 for distress, time, and trouble for its failing in handling the fire risk assessment.
  2. £200 for distress, time, and trouble for its complaints handling failure.
3. Confirm whether the FRA recommendations within the second FRA report have now been carried out or when they will be carried out.
4. Amend its fire policy to explicitly state that the landlord’s timeframes will be used to complete FRA recommendations.
5. Amend its stage one complaints response letters to explain that the resident can ask for their complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints process if they remain dissatisfied.
6. Review its staff complaints training and ensure stage 1.5 is removed from any internal processes and is not mentioned in any communication with residents.
7. Carry out a self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code and provide to this Service or provide its self-assessment if completed within the last six months.
8. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.