Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202113690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113690

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

17 October 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for information on the building to be provided to leaseholders including a report on the grey cladding.
2. Request for an action plan in relation to service charges and fire safety.
3. Request for regular leaseholder meetings with minutes.
4. Associated formal complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord living in a two bedroom first floor flat of a communal building. The lease assigned to the resident on 30 April 2014.
The landlord holds a head lease for the building and a separate organisation is the freeholder. There is a managing agent who has day to day management responsibility for the building.

Scope of investigation

The matters complained about above recognises the complaint made to the landlord which completed the landlord’s internal complaints process on 20 December 2021. In correspondence with this service the resident requested a number of outcomes as follows:
1. For current leaseholders of two buildings wishing to sell, the landlord should take 0% from shared owners’ percentage of the sale and waive other fees.
2. The landlord should contribute to the cost of lease extensions.
3. For a period of two years, the approximate length of the complaint issues, the landlord should remove any proportion of rent taken from shared owners that would be defined as surplus.
4. Where a leaseholder owns 100% of their flat, they should be reimbursed a similar amount to the above three points.
This service cannot determine liability for charges, remediation costs and/or charges linked to the terms of a lease. This is because it requires a binding decision from a court or tribunal service. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) on these issues or refer them to the First Tier Tribunal.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s fire safety and cladding information on its website says:
1. Its policy had been updated to reflect the new government position. It would not pass on costs to leaseholders for:
  1. Any fire safety remediation works it undertakes related to historic defects as defined by the Building Safety Act 2022.
  2. Work carried out relating to interim measures, including temporary alarm installations and evacuation management costs such as waking watch.
  3. This applied to all leaseholders irrespective of the height of the building lived in.
The landlord’s website sets out its customer service promise which says that it will be accountable and look for solutions, be respectful, do what it says, keep residents informed and learn and listen.
The home ownership policy outlines that the landlord will:
1. Seek to manage its blocks and estates in line with the lease and other contractual requirements.
2. Comply with legal and regulatory requirements and government policies including health and safety requirements.
3. For matters affecting the safety of the block or others, take action based on its best assessment of the facts and the advice of relevant authorities and or appropriate professionals and consultants. Any and all costs will be sought from the homeowner unless it is able to recover these from a third party.
This Service’s spotlight report on managing cladding complaints says:
1. Effective communication is vital and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well resourced and proactive. The risk otherwise is increased frustration and deterioration of the resident and landlord relationship. This extends to be open and transparent about long term plans.
2. Landlords should provide a clear roadmap to outline their long-term compliance plans to all residents. These plans should include clear and realistic timescales for action and be kept under review and regularly updated where changes occur.
3. Where the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, they should engage the freeholder or their managing agent to ensure the landlord has as much information as possible to enable timely and comprehensive updates to residents.
4. Landlords should ensure they respond to specific issues raised by residents and not provide entirely or substantially generic responses.
5. Landlords should assure themselves that those responding to cladding enquiries or complaints have access to accurate information and an understanding of specialist terms to ensure correct interpretation of technical information.
At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints policy:
1. Informal complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days. Where possible it would find a solution and respond to close the informal complaint within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
2. Formal complaints were acknowledged within 3 working days. A case conference would be held within 5 working days of receipt of the complaint. An investigation would be undertaken following the case conference. A response was provided within 7 working days from when the complaint was received and no later than 3 working days from when due.
3. Where a complaint was not resolved at the formal complaint stage customers could request a review by either the landlord’s staff or the landlord’s staff and two involved residents. The review request form must be completed within 10 working days of the formal response. This would be acknowledged within 3 working days of receipt of the request. The decision would be provided within 10 working days of the review panel hearing.

Summary of events

On 29 June 2021 the resident emailed the landlord to complain about a number of previously raised issues. His complaint outlined the following:
1. He was a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord and had raised queries himself as well as on behalf of other leaseholders.
2. The landlord had repeatedly failed to provide correct and consistent information in a timely manner.
3. He referred to dates between 24 November 2020 to 18 May 2021 where he had submitted queries in relation to fire risk assessments, EWS1 forms and results of grey cladding testing. Information had not been received for up to 11 weeks from requesting it.
4. On requesting an EWS1 on 27 January 2021 he was advised it did not exist, yet it had been completed on 21 July 2020. The building had been confirmed as five storeys but was in fact six storeys. The building was in the process of being updated to an A2 rating and no fire safety remediation work was required, however the managing agent had no intention to apply for an updated EWS1 rating. There was fire safety remediation work identified to the balconies and vents.
5. Other questions had been submitted and not answered. This included what discussions the landlord had with the managing agent and developers regarding the remediation work and costs. What the landlord and managing agent were doing to avoid the costs of the fire safety remediation being passed onto leaseholders.
6. The communication process agreed between the managing agent and landlord was ineffective and there was no clear accountability.
7. The resident said that he had no confidence in the landlord to provide information which was correct or in a timely manner. There had been numerous apologies and “hollow promises” that there would be improvements. This had now reached the stage where the resident was starting to involve third parties and planned to submit a formal complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 30 June 2021 as an “informal” complaint.
Following a telephone call with the landlord, the resident emailed a list of outstanding questions on 6 July 2021. He said that these had previously been asked but not answered. The landlord’s records showed that it closed the informal complaint on 7 July 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 13 July 2021 as he had received no response to an email and said he had given months to provide documented answers to his queries.
On 14 July 2021 the landlord responded to the resident apologising that he had not received a response. It confirmed that it had met with two residents and a representative from the managing agent. It agreed to work with residents and the managing agent on an action plan that would be shared. The managing agent was waiting for a report on potential work required which would be shared when it had more information. It had spoken with its resident involvement team to hold regular meetings with residents to track progress on issues raised. Meetings would be virtual and the managing agent would be invited.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 July 2021 to provide answers to the questions raised. It said an update would be circulated to all residents the following week. The response to the questions were as follows:
1. The results of the grey cladding testing had not been passed onto leaseholders two months after it was obtained because a discussion with the managing agent indicated that the rating had not changed, thus, there was no further update at the time.
2. In relation to whether the landlord was making a surplus on rent, it said that it had set aside significant funds to spend on fire safety works over the coming 5 years. Unlike private developers it was a not for profit organisation and reinvested its income back into providing a service to its residents. It would impact its ability to provide these services and was pushing for government funding.
3. It was pushing for more government funding support for leaseholders and housing associations to get through the funding crisis. Where demands for payment caused financial hardship, it was working with leaseholders to agree a flexible payment option. It was dedicating considerable resources to raising the issue at the highest levels of government.
4. In relation to the lease, even though the resident owned a share of the property, he was responsible for paying towards the costs of managing the building. It appreciated how difficult this was and referred the resident to the lease clauses. The proportion of service charge cost was not determined by the share owned. If a leaseholder owned a higher or lower percentage it would pay the same share towards the service charge. All of the flats in the block paid the same amount. Where works were required to the exterior of the building all flats would contribute towards this.
5. The landlord did not hold the lease for a particular building from which wooden cladding had been removed and was therefore not entitled to information on whether it had been tested.
6. The managing agent had carried out investigations into the wooden balcony material. It had submitted the information to a surveyor and was waiting for a response. The managing agent advised that it was chasing this and would update once it received a response.
7. It would be for the managing agent to advise and inform the landlord as to what works had been identified in relation to the balconies and wooden struts, however, fire advice and information was changing.
8. The managing agent had asked a surveyor to look at the plastic vents at the bottom of the cladding and whether it needed replacing. It was up to the managing agent to identify what works were needed.
9. The landlord was not party to the discussions between the managing agent and the developer. As a leaseholder it would be seeking an update on any negotiations and would share this in relation to the remediation work and request for costs.
10. The managing agent had advised that no policies were issued to managing agents and/or freeholders from the NHBC.
11. Once the managing agent had been advised of works needed, it would be in a position to discuss costs being passed onto leaseholders.
12. The EWS1 commissioned by the managing agent looked at the external wall and it was waiting to hear back on what works were needed to the balconies.
13. The managing agent was chasing a response from the surveyor. Once this had been received it would have a clearer idea of the works needed and key milestones.
14. The landlord was unable to confirm the position in relation to whether an EWS1 was needed given the updated RICS guidance and number of storeys. It would raise this with the managing agent who would need to confirm this point.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 July 2021 and said that he had hoped the leaseholder meeting promised would be scheduled to discuss the issues.
Between 4 August 2021 and 30 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on four separate occasions due to receiving no response.On each occasion the landlord responded providing a date by which it would respond. On 30 August the landlord apologised, stating it had sent the resident’s email again to the home ownership team who would respond by 2 September 2021.It emailed him on 2 September 2021 to apologise for not contacting him.
On 4 September 2021 the resident requested a letter of “deadlock”. He requested:
1. For leaseholders to be provided with an update which the landlord had promised a month prior.
2. A schedule for the leaseholder meetings that had been agreed.
3. To provide answers to all questions submitted including provision and an explanation of the results of the grey cladding testing which the landlord had since 4 May 2021. This was to assist in resolving issues with communication including inaccurate and long delays in receiving information. To resolve the lack of long-term compliance plan and timescales regarding fire safety remediation and not addressing individual leaseholder questions.
4. The resident said that there had been no response for 30 working days. Attempts to resolve the issues had not been satisfactory. It had taken 11 plus weeks for the landlord to give fire risk assessment information, when it had taken under five days for the managing agent to be given the same information regarding the same buildings.
5. The resident said that he had reached a deadlock situation and therefore was left with no alternative but to bring the complaint to this Service.
The landlord responded the resident on 7 September 2021 and said it was sorry that communication had not improved. It had escalated the complaint for formal investigation and would respond by 21 September 2021. It also emailed on 8 September 2021 to say it had referred the request for a letter of deadlock to its complaints team who would respond by 13 September 2021. On 14 September 2021 the landlord emailed to say it was sorry it had been unable to resolve the resident’s queries resulting in a formal complaint. It summarised the issues raised and said it would provide a response by 27 September 2021.
The resident responded to the landlord on 16 September 2021 and said that he hoped to establish a good relationship moving forward. However similar promises had been made previously about providing leaseholders with updates and improving relationships. He said that the landlord had been “in a continuous cycle of procrastination, apologies and promises.”
The landlord requested an extension to respond to the formal complaint on 24 September 2021 and said it would provide a written response by 1 October 2021. On 1 October 2021 the landlord emailed a holding response to the resident and said it would provide a further response by 6 October 2021.
On 6 October 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s questions. It repeated its responses from July 2021. Its response said, but was not limited to:
1. It would be presenting an action plan to residents one week in advance of a meeting scheduled for 21 October 2021 at 6:30pm.
2. The results of the grey cladding testing were sent to the fire service by the managing agent. The results of the tests did not affect the overall rating A3. The report was technical and it would ask its fire safety team to provide a summary which it would share.
3. It agreed it needed to do better in terms of communication including inaccurate information and long delays. There had been challenges with vacancies in the team.
4. It remained in regular contact with the managing agent and as soon as it was aware of any proposed works or costs it would share the information.
The landlord provided its formal response on 8 October 2021. It said that it was sorry the resident had cause to complain. It had investigated the following issues:
1. Issues with communication including inaccurate and long delays in receiving information.
2. Lack of long-term compliance plan and timescales regarding fire safety remediation.
3. Not addressing individual questions from leaseholders and attempts to resolve these problems had not been satisfactory.
4. Delay in responding including 11 plus weeks to provide copies of fire risk assessments.
5. The landlord said that in order to resolve the complaints the resident had requested:
  1. Provision of an update which had been promised a month prior.
  2. To schedule leaseholder meetings that had been agreed.
  3. Provide answers to all questions submitted.
  4. Provide responses within 10 working days and for these issues not to be repeated. Previous apologies and promises had been made for improvements but no changes occurred.
6. The landlord said that a new senior property manager would be starting on 11 October 2021 who would be the lead for communication with residents. It would also ensure queries on fire safety, service charges and general property management were responded to. Meeting residents would be one of the first priorities.
7. It was arranging a virtual meeting week commencing 18 October 2021 and could accommodate daytime or evening meetings.
8. It had been keeping in touch with the managing agent who had advised that surveyors had been appointed to identify a schedule of works. It understood that the surveyors had been on site for the past couple of weeks. Once a schedule had been agreed and it had been shared with the fire service then costings would follow. It would share any information it was able to.
9. It was not the freeholder of the building and was also a leaseholder. It had spoken with the managing agent and provided an up-to-date position statement of the information it had. It responded to 26 questions set out in a table which repeated similar responses to the questions from July 2021.
10. It was sorry for the delayed responses, it had been a challenging time with lots of changes in how it worked. Five members of the team out of 11 had left the business over a short period of time. It had recruited new staff and said it would start improving the way it worked.
11. It said it was important that it learned from the resident’s experience and wanted to work with residents to give meetings focus and structure.
12. It said it wanted to put together an updated action plan split into service charge and fire safety to capture all queries and responses so far. It would get this out a week prior to meetings to give residents time to read through it and raise any further questions in advance of the meetings. It said it would also ensure that the managing agent was invited.
On 31 October 2021 the resident completed a request for review form to escalate his complaint. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the review request on 2 November 2021.
A review panel met on 10 December 2021 to assess the resident’s complaint and on 20 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident with the outcome of the review panel meeting.
1. It summarised the complaint as:
  1. The landlord had failed to meet the promises made within its formal complaint response. For example, the action plan did not have clear deliverables or dates.
  2. The resident had received a lack of documented information and contradictory information from the landlord.
  3. There had been a lack of progress in terms of the actions completed by the landlord and the information provided.
2. It summarised the outcomes the resident was seeking from the review as:
  1. The landlord to provide an action plan which included clear dates. The content to be agreed with residents.
  1. The landlord to proactively schedule regular meetings, with minutes, and provide regular written updates.
  2. To provide objective evidence that actions and queries had been addressed and closed in a timely manner.
3. It sincerely apologised that it had not done what it said it would do. It was clear it had made promises in the formal response and action plan that it had not kept. It understood the frustration this caused.
4. It committed to ensure that it “tweaked” the way it had been scheduling and running meetings. It asked its leasehold team to work with the resident and agree how this would be implemented to provide clear structure to the agenda and actions. It would ensure that time was given for questions prior to the meeting and answers shared with all residents. It said a member of its staff would make contact by 7 January 2022 to discuss the agenda and set out the current questions and outstanding actions.
5. It would ensure that from January 2022 monthly meetings were held.
6. It understood the importance of the managing agent being present at the meetings and had agreed that they would attend at appropriate times as requested.
7. It discussed the frustration regarding the grey cladding report and why the information had not been shared with all residents. The managing agent had provided the report which would be shared at the next meeting. It had enclosed a copy of the report for the resident’s information.
8. It hoped that the resident felt his complaint had been addressed and a suitable resolution offered.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 January 2022 to say this was his fourth email since 15 January 2022. It was not acceptable that he needed to keep asking the same questions and chasing overdue actions. Residents had a year of broken promises with no visible improvement.
In an email from the resident to the landlord on 20 February 2022 the resident raised the following:
1. The action plan was not fit for purpose. Multiple cells did not contain action owners, due dates, correct or objective evidence. This had been commented on in October 2021 and November 2021 meetings.
2. As part of the formal complaint process and panel review outcome it had stated “we discussed your frustration regarding the grey cladding report and why the information had not been shared with all residents. The managing agent provided the report which would be shared at the next meeting.” At the meeting, the resident said that the staff member had stated “I do not have the report and I couldn’t explain it if I did have it.” The review panel had said this would happen as did the action plan agreed 7 February 2022.
3. Meetings were not being scheduled as agreed and minutes were not being taken to avoid repetition and repeated conversations.
An email from the resident dated 2 May 2022 to the landlord showed:
1. The grey cladding report had not been shared with all leaseholders.
2. Only one meeting had taken place from December 2021 to April 2022.
3. Minutes had not been taken or meetings recorded.
Further correspondence between the resident and landlord of 5 June 2022 also referred to the action plan which was missing actions that were present on the action plan circulated on 16 February 2022. The resident also advised that the landlord had agreed to previously send meeting invitations 2 weeks ahead of meetings and provide minutes of meetings.
The landlord’s response of 20 December 2021 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that the complaint had exhausted the landlord internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

Request for information on the building to be provided to leaseholders including a report on the grey cladding.

The resident made multiple requests for information about the building and for the grey cladding report findings to be shared with leaseholders. The landlord made numerous commitments to provide information, however the evidence suggests that information was not forthcoming or informative.
In the landlord’s response to the resident’s questions on 23 July 2021 the landlord stated that results of the grey cladding were discussed in a meeting with the managing agent. The rating had not changed and there wereno further updates at the time.The landlord did not indicate that it would share the results at this point or provide any further explanation of what had been found in the testing.
In its response on 6 October 2021, it said it had asked for its fire safety team to do a summary of the cladding report which would be shared with leaseholders. There was no evidence to suggest that a summary of the report was made or shared with leaseholders. It would have been helpful for the landlord to have provided a summary rather than leaving residents wondering what the report contained or how this would impact them.
In its formal response of 8 October 2021, the landlord repeated its response from 23 July 2021.The landlord again failed to provide any meaningful information about the grey cladding report findings.
The panel review findings said “we discussed your frustration regarding the grey cladding report and why the information had not been shared with all residents. The managing agent provided the report which would be shared at the next meeting.” The evidence showed that the report was not discussed at the next meeting whereby the landlord’s member of staff had stated it did not have the report available. It failed to deliver on its assurances given from the panel review meeting.
The landlord’s member of staff, according to the resident, had stated that it did not have a copy of the report and would be unable to explain the findings. This Service’s spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints states that landlord should assure themselves that those responding to cladding enquiries or complaints have access to accurate information and an understanding of specialist terms to ensure correct interpretation of technical information. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have arranged for a member of staff, with technical knowledge, to attend the meeting to provide an overview and explanation of the report.
From the evidence provided further email correspondence from the resident to the landlord it showed that in June 2022 the report findings had still not been shared with all leaseholders.
This service’s spotlight report on cladding complaints says that landlords should ensure they respond to specific issues raised by residents and not provide entirely or substantially generic responses. As outlined above, the landlord did not provide specific information as requested and repeated the same responses throughout its communication.
The landlord’s customer service promise says that it will be accountable and look for solutions, be respectful, do what it says, keep residents informed and learn and listen.
1. The resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for responses over a prolonged period of time.
2. The landlord’s responses, whilst apologising, did not acknowledge its continued poor communication, the resident’s frustration or stress which he had mentioned in his original complaint. The risk of poor communication is increased frustration and deterioration of the resident and landlord relationship.
3. It persistently failed to do what it said it would which resulted in damaging the relationship between the landlord and resident.
From November 2020 when the resident first raised his queries to July 2022 the evidence demonstrated continued poor communication, lack of information being provided and further frustration to the resident. The landlord failed to learn from its failures, deliver on its promises and provide meaningful information. For this reason, this Service finds maladministration.

Request for an action plan for service charges and fire safety

The landlord made a number of commitments to provide an action plan. On 14 July 2021 the landlord said it would work with residents and the managing agent on an action plan that would be shared. On 6 October 2021 the landlord said it would be presenting an action plan one week prior to the meeting on 21 October 2021. On 8 October 2021 it said it wanted to put together an updated action plan.
The review panel findings apologised that it had not done what it said it would do. However, the landlord persistently failed to deliver on its promises to provide a comprehensive action plan with owners and timescales.
On 20 February 2022 the resident advised the landlord that the action plan was not fit for purpose and in further correspondence from the resident in May 2022 demonstrated that there was still no clear action plan, that dates were missing along with owners for actions.
This Service’s spotlight report on managing cladding complaints says landlords should provide a clear roadmap to outline their long-term compliance plans to all residents. These plans should include clear and realistic timescales for action and be kept under review and regularly updated where changes occur.
The landlord failed to provide a clear action plan with clear and realistic timescales for action. For the reasons above this Service finds maladministration.

Request for Leaseholder meetings with minutes.

In the formal response provided by the landlord, it promised to hold regular monthly meetings, to set an agenda which would be agreed with the resident prior to meetings, circulate the agenda prior to the meetings and invite questions which could be asked and answered at the meetings, to record and minute the meetings.
This was further promised at the review panel whereby the panel said, “from January we will ensure that monthly meetings are held.” The evidence provided demonstrates that there had been only one meeting between December 2021 and April 2022. The landlord failed to deliver on its promise set out in the review panel findings.
The resident was told that the managing agent would be invited to attend meetings to provide updates. While there is evidence to suggest that the managing agent was invited, it chose not to attend. However, the landlord should have ensured that it had up to date information from the managing agent to share at meetings. Where the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, they should engage the freeholder or their managing agent to ensure the landlord has as much information as possible to enable timely and comprehensive updates to residents.
The evidence provided suggests that meetings were not recorded and no minutes were taken. In an email on 25 June 2022 the resident was chasing the date of the next meeting with the landlord further demonstrating that the landlord had not set up regular monthly meetings with leaseholders.
For the reasons set out above this Service finds maladministration

Complaint Handling

At the time of the complaint the landlord was operating a 3 stage complaint process. It initially recorded the resident’s complaint of 29 June 2021 as “informal”. Having an informal complaint stage is not reflective of best practice. Ideally landlords should operate a 2 stage complaint process. It was not appropriate to raise an informal complaint given that the resident had stated he was at the point of raising a formal complaint. The landlord should have recognised this as a formal complaint from the outset.
The landlord closed the informal complaint on 7 July 2021. However, it was not clear from the evidence provided whether the landlord had assumed that the informal complaint had been resolved or confirmed with the resident whether his complaint was successfully concluded.
A formal complaint only appears to have been raised following the resident’s email of 18 August 2021 where he said he would raise a complaint with this Service and requested a letter of deadlock.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing as:
1. It acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint stating it would provide a response by 21 September 2021.
2. It also responded the following day to say that it had passed the complaint to the complaints team with regard to the letter of deadlock and would respond by 13 September 2021.
3. It was not clear whether the landlord was responding to the formal complaint and letter of deadlock as two separate complaints. However, there was no evidence to suggest that a response was made in relation to the deadlock letter on 13 September 2021.
There was further confusion in the landlord’s complaint handling response times as it gave multiple dates by which it would respond.
1. It originally stated it would respond by 21 September 2021.
2. Further correspondence summarised the complaint and said it would respond by 27 September 2021.
3. A holding response said it would respond by 6 October and the final response was provided on 8 October 2021.
4. This formal response was 34 working days after the formal complaint was accepted on 4 September 2021 and 14 working days outside of best practice recommended timescale of 20 working days.
Any remedy proposed should be followed through to completion. The landlord’s responses made commitments to deliver monthly meetings, explain the results of the grey cladding report and to provide an action plan. The landlord repeatedly failed to deliver on its promises. The landlord also offered no financial remedy for its failings and did not consider any detriment to the resident for his time and trouble in persistently chasing responses.
The landlord’s formal response referred to learning from the resident’s experience, however there was no evidence that it had done so given that it continued to repeat the delays in communication or deliver on its commitments.
For the reasons set out above, this Service finds maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for information on the building to be provided to leaseholders including a report on the grey cladding.
2. Request for an action plan in relation to service charges and fire safety.
3. Request for regular leaseholder meetings with minutes.
4. Associated formal complaint.

Reasons

The landlord persistently failed to provide information and share the grey cladding report with leaseholders despite its commitment at the review panel to provide it at the next meeting. The landlord persistently delayed in providing responses to the resident resulting in him constantly chasing for updates and answers.
The landlord failed to implement an appropriate action plan with actionable timescales and dates.
The landlord failed to set up regular monthly meetings with minutes as promised at the review panel meeting.
The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing and repetitive. It should have recognised the resident’s complaint as a formal complaint from the outset. No learning from the complaint was evidenced to demonstrate improvement in its communication.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600 made up as follows:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience of the landlord’s failure in setting up regular meetings with minutes, provide an appropriate action plan and share the grey cladding report with leaseholders.
2. £200 for the time and trouble caused to the resident in repeatedly contacting the landlord and chasing responses.
3. £200 for its failure to effectively respond to the resident’s complaint and failures in its complaint handling.
Issue an apology from a senior member of staff to the resident for the failures identified in this report.
Within 4 weeks of this determination provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.