Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202125082)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125082

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

27 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s communication in relation to the resident’s fire safety concerns within the building.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has occupied the property, a one bedroom apartment, on a shared ownership basis, since 2017. The property is one of many situated within two apartment blocks.
The resident has brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as a lead complainant, acting on behalf of a group of residents who have formed an informal ‘action group’ and raised a group complaint with the landlord. Communication on the issues raised within the complaint has come from/to the resident, other individual members of the group, and a general ‘action group’ email address.
In this investigation, all such communications are considered to have been made on behalf of the group as a whole and, as such, are deemed to have been seen by all members of the group, including the resident. For ease of reference within this report, all communications from/to the wider group are stated to have been made by/to the resident, as the lead complainant on behalf of the group.

The lease and landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Paragraphs 7.3 to 7.6 of the lease say:
1. The service charge will be estimated before the beginning of the account year.
2. The service charge will comprise all expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord, in connection with repair, improvement or management maintenance or provision of services for the building.
3. The landlord will determine the amount the estimate may have been exceeded, as soon as possible after the end of the account year.
The landlord’s Fire Safety Management Procedure says, emerging regulation may require it to make significant changes to the way it manages fire safety in buildings.
The landlord’s Complaints Resolution Policy says, where possible it will seek to resolve complaints informally. If it becomes a formal complaint, it should be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response provided within 10 working days. A review can then be requested within 10 workings days, either involving only landlord staff, or with two involved residents also. The landlord representative should be a director or senior manager and the resident should be sent a copy of the decision within 10 working days of the review.

Summary of events

The landlord was one of 8 social landlords to join the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s (MHCLG) Social Sector (Building Safety) Engagement Best Practice Group. The aim was to explore the way landlords communicate fire safety issues with social housing residents. Although the legislation did not apply to buildings under 11 metres, the landlord said it would carry out works to the resident’s block despite it being below that height, to ensure the residents were safe. MHCLG produced a report in January 2020, which explained a building owner’s obligations for the safety of the building and its residents. This included assessing external wall systems.
The resident was advised on 29 May 2020 that the external cladding system on her block required testing to determine its compliance with regulations. A fire risk assessment took place on 3 June 2020 and the façade of the building was inspected on 6 June 2020. Potential issues were identified including insufficient cavity barriers, the evacuation strategy ought to be changed, and an alarm system should be installed.
A quotation proposal for a fire detection and fire alarm system was produced for the landlord on 4 September 2020. The landlord notified the resident on 25 September 2020 that it intended to fit a temporary wireless alarm and heat detection system, until external remedial works were completed. It said there may be a cost to residents for this.
On 7 December 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained that after sampling and testing exterior walls in the block, it had identified some issues. It said timber cladding and cavity barriers required remediation work. It was reviewing available funding, including the developer, warranty provider and Building Safety Fund (BSF). If funding could not be obtained that way, it may need to recover costs through the service charge.
On the same day the landlord issued a Section 20 notice about the installation of a fire detection system in the building. It advised a contribution from each resident was required, and provided 2 estimates; £2,023.23 and £2,973.53. It said the next step was to decide which contractor to instruct.
On 29 December 2020, and 8, 11, 15, 18 and 19 January 2021, the landlord responded to many separate queries made by the resident, in response to the 7 December 2020 notice. In summary, it explained its current position on the: timescales for the works; recharging and funding arrangements; prioritisation of works; existing alarm system; service charge processes; contents of the external wall report; and quotes it had obtained.
The landlord gave an update to the resident on 26 January 2021. It reported on its fire safety investigations, the steps it had already taken to address the issues raised, and the further actions it would need to take. An update was also sent to the resident’s MP the following day providing assurances around the action it was taking on funding and remediation costs and moving the works forward.
On 12 February 2021, the landlord issued a Section 20 notice about the installation of a fire detection system. It provided details of the installer and explained, although it did not appoint the contractor with the lowest estimate, it would cap the costs payable by residents to match that of the lowest priced estimate. It estimated each resident’s contribution to be £1,011.11. Another fire risk assessment of the block was carried out and the resident was told when the fire alarm system would be installed.
The landlord, along with the resident, created an action plan on 24 February 2021. This recorded all actions/matters to be dealt with, including the responses to the Section 20 notice. It was a live document, and captured both the resident’s concerns and queries, along with the landlord’s responses. It was agreed that the landlord would meet with the resident regularly to go through the action plan, and these did subsequently take place.
An alarm and detection system was installed and commissioned in the resident’s building, in early March 2021.
On 18 May 2021, the landlord notified the resident of the company that would be doing the remediation works to the external wall system. It said a two-day survey would take place, starting 26 May 2021.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 and 19 August 2021, as they had heard work on their building would be starting earlier than planned, and they had not been consulted about it. They also asked about whether the developer would be liable for some of the remediation.
The landlord had a meeting with the resident on 2 September 2021, and the resident sent an email the same day, setting out their understanding of what was discussed and raising some queries. In the landlord’s response of 9 September 2021, it explained:
1. All remediation work was being reassessed in line with the draft fire safety assessment. The review was being undertaken by leading independent industry experts, the priority being the blocks that were early in the planned remediation programme. It explained there was a requirement from the government and from the Grenfell Inquiry to expediate remediation works where required.
2. Any consultation on costs and works would be based on an agreed maximum price, which was a sum agreed by all parties and would not be exceeded.
3. The remediation works were to conform with the government guidance on external wall systems and were not intended as ‘improvement works’.
4. There would be a consultation with residents on the extent of works required following the review. The review was in progress and the Remediation team had begun to consult with blocks at the start of the programme. They would be in contact once the review was completed and the extent of works was known.
5. The plan was to still comply with the planned remediation programme timelines whilst ensuring there was consultation.
6. In terms of claims against the builder and warranties, it said the 2007 block was highly likely to be time barred for a developer limitation claim as it was over 12 years. It was working with its internal teams and legal advisors and contacting the developer on the 2010 build. It could not give a timeline for this as it was dependent on the responses received. It was preparing case files for all buildings between 12 to 15 years in preparation for the next announcement.
7. If the leaseholders were liable for costs, its Income team would review that on case-by-case basis. At that time it was unclear who would be responsible to pay and it was awaiting guidance from the government and lobbying with other social landlords.
8. It explained what its management fee covered. It also explained it had spent time putting in place contractors who were able to deliver value for money, quality of services and works. In addition, it had to oversee what the contractor was doing and manage the contract. This was costly and covered by way of a management fee. It explained its cap of £2,250 should cover the extensive effort put in already and the work still to do.
9. In terms of communication, the resident had been provided with a webpage that would be updated when the fire compliance information was known. It arranged a further meeting with the resident, for 7 October 2021.
The resident asked the landlord on 14 September 2021 if it could provide more specific information about work due to be done (landlord response in italics):
1. Did the review process by the remediation team include their block and when would it have more information?

The landlord was reviewing the block under new guidance and would have drafts back by mid–October 2021. It would then take about 2 weeks to determine the best course of action.

When would they see the expected plans and costs?

Plans were drawn up and the tender process had started. It could only provide costs once the design was finalised and the contractor was ready. Once a fire assessment was complete and the next steps agreed, it would share its findings with the resident.

Would the landlord arrange any improvement works at the same time as remediation?

The plan was to only carry out fire safety works to the external wall system; but, it may find issues requiring consideration, but these would not be improvements.

When would the work happen?

It would provisionally start in that financial year, 2021/22.

Could it provide details of costs?

Information regarding timescale for payments and the accounting period in which the remedial work costs, would be provided in a Section 20 notice. That would be issued when it received the cost estimate for the remedial works. It may use reserve/sinking fund money it held for the resident’s block to pay for some works or contribute toward the costs that have been or will be incurred. It could not say for sure until it had assessed everything.

Between 15 September and 5 October 2021, the resident raised queries with the landlord about the costs of the fire alarm system, the need for new insulation and windows and the independence of fire safety assessments. They were also concerned about potential unnecessary work and whether it was claiming under warranties. The landlord explained work may be rescheduled, to bring work on their block forward and it went on to address all the queries on 7 October 2021.
This was followed by a meeting with the resident, which led to further queries being raised. It responded to those on 14 October 2021. It said who was carrying out fire safety assessments, and it was reviewing government guidance while noting the fire risks in need of remediation. It explained it was exploring claims against third parties and would share more once an option was identified. It was unable to share costs and timescales of the assessments at that time; however, it would try and get the fire assessments shared with the resident.
The resident asked for further information from the landlord on 19 October 2021; notably,
1. For an update on legal proceedings and who the landlord thought was liable for the costs of the building defect.
2. For an update on a claim on the NHBC warranty.
3. Why the fire safety review was not being carried out by an independent body.
4. For a copy of the survey carried out in June 2020.
5. For an updated timeline.
6. To be told of the correct amount to be charged for the fire alarm.
7. To be put in touch with other residents that had had remediation work stopped.
On 20 October 2021, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, and raised the following issues:
1. Poor communication.
  1. They had to chase for responses to emails and telephone calls.
  2. The landlord sent staff to meetings that did not have the information needed to deal with matters.
  3. They had to chase for information about what work was needed and when that work would start.
  4. They were not receiving as much information as those in other residential blocks nearby.
2. Planning and carrying out works without obtaining consent, including:
  1. Fire alarm installation.
  2. Building assessment.
  3. Not being shown final plans or given input in to the progression of work.
  4. Failure to confirm that any recommendations made in relation to the building, would be in line with the amended Fire Safety Bill.
3. It had not evidenced correspondence with the developer about missing or poorly fitting fire breaks in the building, and claiming on the NHBC warranty.
The complaint was acknowledged on 27 October, and the landlord said it would issue a response by 10 November 2021.
On 31 October 2021, the resident queried the cost of a survey the residents were being charged for, something they had initially raised in September 2021.
In the landlord’s complaint response issued on 10 November 2021, it said:
1. It was sorry the resident felt they had to chase for responses as it was providing updates via a web page created for the block.
2. It was not always possible for a member of the Fire Compliance team to attend resident meetings, but it would respond to any queries sent by email.
3. In terms of fire remedial works, the Fire Compliance team was going to arrange a series of meetings to discuss the works, design solution, programme, and its impact. It would also introduce the contractor and other project staff; however, other blocks were being worked on first.
4. Fire engineers had confirmed the interim measures it had put in place in the building would keep people safe until remediation work to the façade was complete. It would continue to progress fire safety works to internal areas when required.
5. Leaseholder consultation was undertaken as part of the Section 20 process for the temporary fire detection and alarm installation. Residents had been invited to provide their observations.
6. Residents were sent a letter on 18 May 2021 which gave notice of a design survey starting on 26 May 2021.
7. It was unsure what was meant by review of a plan. A fire risk appraisal and assessment of external wall construction and cladding was planned for the building. This would be undertaken by a panel of fire experts.
8. It was constantly reviewing its programme to align with the latest advice and guidance, and to allow for changing priorities.
9. It was sorry if it seemed the timelines kept changing but the programme needed to be agile and responsive.
10. Residents would be consulted at various stages as the programme progressed.
11. In January 2020, government advice required building owners and those responsible for the management of buildings to undertake a comprehensive review of the external wall systems to the blocks. It required the review to take place irrespective of the height of the building.
12. The legislative instruments were also under review which had led to the new Fire Safety Act 2021. This ensured that fire risk assessments incorporated the external wall systems, building structure, and flat front entrance doors.
13. The government’s Building Safety Review and Regime had introduced the Building Safety Bill. Formal guidance was being introduced that would not alter its existing purpose or content.
14. Assessments carried out were proportionate and risk based, and had confirmed there to be significant fire risks that required remediation. This was in line with the government requirements.
15. With regard to recovering costs from third parties, it was doing all it could to recover fire remediation costs from others. It had been clear it would only pass on costs to leaseholders after exhausting all options. It had been working with its legal advisors to ensure all possible routes to recover costs from third parties had been explored.
16. If it disclosed legally sensitive information the chances of a successful claim could be damaged. So, it needed to keep information confidential, although it may be able to share more information as things progressed.

On 18 November 2021, the resident requested a review of the complaint and stated that:
1. The complaint ought to have been investigated by someone independent.
2. The web page was not always accurate and updates made were also not always clear.
3. In terms of potential fire remedial works, and saying work on other blocks was coming first, was contradictory to what the web page said; that being work was being brought forward a year.
4. The alarm installation was started without any notice and the communication was poor.
5. They were informed of the design survey happening, but were not consulted on the costs involved in advance. Therefore, they should not be charged. In addition, the survey happened in May and by November the outcome had still not been communicated.
6. They would await the fire risk appraisal and assessment of external wall construction and cladding; but said it had not communicated when it would take place and who would do it.
7. Informal advice had been received which suggested that based on the height of the building there should not be a compliance issue with the cladding as per the January 2020 guidance/regulations. Therefore, the works were disputed, and a request was made to see the information it was relying upon.
8. In terms of recovering costs from third parties, a builder had been ignoring emails, but no evidence had been provided of efforts it had made. If the landlord was not having success, residents should have been told, so they could pursue it themselves.
9. An update was wanted on whether claims it was making were genuine. Their MP had asked for information twice and the request had not been dealt with. It was felt the landlord had not provided a good reason to not provide information about claims, as not all information was likely to be sensitive.
The landlord responded to the resident’s query from 31 October 2021 about the survey, on 25 November 2021. It apologised for the delay, which was as a result of someone being on annual leave, and it said the cost was in relation to a survey where no consultation notices were sent. Costs were capped at £250 per flat and it would be included in the 2021 to 2022 year end accounts.
The resident responded the same day and wanted clarity around whether the survey referred to was in June 2020 and about what money taken from the sinking fund had been used for. In addition, they commented on how an updated statement for 2020 to 2021 had been sent and had the cost of an alarm as £1,011.11 which should include the management fee. An additional £2,275.02 management fee had also been charged for the alarm, which they felt should be removed.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident wanted their complaint escalated on 26 November 2021 and advised a complaint review panel would take place with the resident on 21 December 2021, which it did.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on the timeline for fire safety works and the potential cost, on 7 December 2021. They said they were told they would see plans but never did and they had no evidence the work was needed, as the building was under 11 metres.
On 7 January 2022, the landlord wrote to all residents explaining that it was postponing fire remediation works to the façade of the building, until the government published new guidance, to clarify whether works to the exterior wall were still required.
The landlord sent the outcome of the complaint review to the resident on 14 January 2022. It pointed out the government had recently made an announcement about building safely, and it needed to review its fire risk assessments against the new fire safety guidance. It could then provide an update on that. In relation to the main issues raised by the resident, it responded as follows:
1. It felt that the manager involved in the case was the best person to consider the complaint, due to fire safety concerns arising from the Grenfell tragedy and from a resource perspective. It pointed out its complaint process offered a review if the outcome was not acceptable, anyway.
2. It apologised for issues with its website, which was supposed to provide updates. It had made the necessary changes and feedback had been passed on to those people responsible for updating the website. It also agreed to send periodic updates by letter/email and a senior property manager would arrange monthly meetings.
3. Due to a government announcement in July 2021, it had paused its remediation program to allow it to review the safety requirements of all its blocks. It needed clarity from the government before being able to continue with the programme of works. It also needed to be agile and responsive and on 7 January 2022 it had explained remedial works to the resident’s block were postponed until it could make a judgement on whether works to the external wall system were required under the new guidance. It would update the resident as soon as it could.
4. It apologised for any confusion caused in relation to contractors attending to install the fire alarm. It intended to let the resident know in advance and was working on being more consistent.
5. It explained a remediation survey and design works occurred in advance of the works being costed and formal consultation being undertaken. The costs were included as part of the remediation and residents would be invited to feed into the proposals, but not until the remediation solution had been designed. It explained that if works to the resident’s block were needed and a projected date established, they would be invited to a series of meetings to discuss the findings of the surveys, works required, design solution, the programme and its impact. They would also be introduced to the contractor and other project staff. No further information could be given at that time, but it confirmed there was no plan to upgrade the windows.
6. In relation to claiming against third parties, using warranties, it was taking legal advice on what remedial costs may be claimed. It was not able to provide any more information than had been given previously. It could not divulge any legally sensitive information as it may affect a possible claim. If it could share information in the future, it would, but there was no guarantee of that. However, it said, if it was possible to recover any of the remedial costs for any work it may have to undertake, from third parties, it would do so. That had always been its position and it noted the government was also applying pressure in this respect.
The landlord also updated the resident’s MP on 14 January 2022, when it explained the steps it was taking to protect leaseholders in light of the government’s fire safety guidance and offered assurances on the work it would be carrying out.
The landlord notified the resident, on 18 January 2022, that a revised 2020-21 year-end service charge statement was going to be issued, to address an error on the previous one. This was because the cost to upgrade the fire alarm panel in one of the blocks had been taken from the sinking funds belonging to both blocks. It apologised for the error.
The resident expressed their dissatisfaction with the review outcome on 20 January 2022 and the landlord met with them to discuss the reasons for their disappointment on 8 February 2022, and confirmed the discussions and next steps by email. In its email of 18 February 2022, the landlord clarified its position on the resident’s queries regarding service charges, fire safety, costs incurred, and potential claims against third parties.
The resident was informed by letter dated 22 February 2022, that a fire defence equipment inspection would take place, on 28 February 2022. The resident told the landlord on 25 February 2022, they were unhappy with the lack of notice given.
The resident raised a number of queries with the landlord on 6 March 2022, including costs included in the service charge and fire safety inspections. The landlord responded on 8 March 2022, and it apologised for the lack of notice given for the inspection on 28 February 2022. On 8 March 2022, the resident raised further queries over certain items included in the service charge. The landlord explained on 15 March 2022, that it was still waiting for a response from its Service Charge team. It confirmed it was attending a meeting with the resident, on 30 March 2022. However, it sent its response to the additional queries on 25 March 2022 including details about the use of the sinking fund, a breakdown of fire safety costs, as well as other costs, such as for pest control, buildings insurance and door entry costs.
Another fire risk assessment was carried out on 10 May 2022.
On 24 May 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it would not pass on costs to leaseholders for any fire safety remediation works undertaken related to historic defects. It would also not pass on costs for work carried out relating to interim measures, including temporary alarm installations and evacuation management costs This applied to all leaseholders, irrespective of the height of the building.
The resident asked for an update from the landlord, on 8 July 2022. It responded on 11 July 2022 and apologised an update had not been sent, due to sickness. On 13 July 2022 it explained the service charge account statements for 2021/2022 were being completed. It hoped to have these finalised in September 2022. The resident’s block needed a new fire risk assessment (known as a PAS assessment), and it should be completed by March 2023. As the building was less than 11 metres high, it did not need an External Wall System form (EWS1). It had also been updating its website with useful questions and answers from other residents, that may be of help.
The planned fire risk assessment of the external wall of the resident’s block, was issued on 27 February 2023. It gave the building a high-risk rating and noted the fire alarm system needed to be upgraded. A number of other mitigating and remediation measures were set out.
The landlord updated the resident on 18 April, 20 July and 4 August 2023. It confirmed a fire safety assessment had been carried out and was available to see if required. It said it would engage with all residents and provide details of the design and works programme when it was ready. It reiterated it would not pass on any costs for fire safety remediation works related to historic defects and it would cover the cost of any interim fire safety measures, including maintaining the fire alarm. The landlord explained work to the block was planned to start in the financial year April 2024 and March 2025; although it was possibly subject to change. It said it was implementing a prioritised programme which looked at the risk of fire safety at all blocks of flats, irrespective of building height. It had over 100 blocks in addition to the resident’s which need remediation works to the façade. The fire assessment for the resident’s block had been done and shared with the resident in April 2023. It said it could not fully confirm the programme until potentially March 2024.
The landlord carried out a third party claim assessment on 8 August 2023, to determine if all opportunities for cost recovery had been considered. It was established that the only route of recovery, was through the Cladding Safety Scheme.

Assessment and findings

Communication

Website and general correspondence

The crux of the complaint is that the landlord has failed to communicate with the resident effectively. In particular, the complaint focuses on the resident having to chase for information. They have complained about not being kept informed by way of the landlord’s website, in relation to the fire remediation programme, on any action taken against third parties and that the landlord had not been clear about accounts.

It was as a result of government guidance in early 2020, that the landlord took appropriate steps, in line with its Fire Safety Management Procedure, to review the risks of the external wall system. This applied to the 2 blocks where the resident lived, and its fire risk assessments. Having carried out a fire risk assessment and inspected the façade, it identified there were issues to address and action that needed to be taken. Having reviewed its position, it was reasonable that the landlord acted upon the findings of the assessment in order to protect the resident’s safety. In this case, that included fitting an alarm system and remediation work.
This was communicated to the resident on 25 September 2020. As the landlord did not know at that time how the work was to be funded, it rightly managed the resident’s expectations, by explaining there may be a cost associated with this work. It went on to provide the resident with estimates for the planned work, but also explained it was seeking funding from third parties, by way of warranties and through the builder or the BSF. This demonstrates that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and considered various sources to minimise the financial impact on residents.
After providing initial estimates for work to be done, the evidence shows the resident submitted several queries to the landlord during December 2020 and January 2021. Despite queries being submitted from a number of sources over several weeks, the landlord replied to each of these, which resulted in it having to send a number of responses. Each one addressed the issues raised and included updates about the fire alarm system and potential funding. This shows the landlord took every query seriously and provided as much information as it could, at that stage.
In terms of the landlord’s website, it accepted there had been issues with it, and it apologised for that. In order to put things right, it made changes to the website and fed back to the team responsible for updating the website, which was appropriate in the circumstances. It also made the resident aware of frequently asked questions, along with answers, it had put on its website, that may to be useful. So the resident was not just reliant upon what the website said, the landlord also said it would send periodic updates by email and letter. It also agreed to attend regular meetings with the resident. Both of which it did, and this ensured the resident was kept reasonably up to date.
Overall, while the website may not have always been updated, the landlord took reasonable steps from 2020 to 2023 to communicate with the resident in the following ways:
1. Put information on its website.
2. Wrote to the resident’s MP to address queries and provide an update.
3. Agreed an action plan which captured all the queries and concerns raised, and updated it with any information/responses it had.
4. Attended regular meetings with the resident, in order to provide updates and answer any queries, which had not been addressed by email or post.
5. Sent at least 35 emails and letters to the resident, responding to queries, and providing updates.
It is accepted that the resident occasionally had to ask the landlord for information more than once before receiving it, but this must be considered in the context of the complaint. The landlord was receiving correspondence from a number of different sources and many of the queries were duplicated. It would have taken time to deal with the number of emails received, and at times it needed to carefully consider its position. Overall, the landlord did address the queries raised by the resident, and it kept the resident updated at key times. Therefore, its general communication was reasonable.

Charges and third party claims

The landlord provided the resident with details about charges that may be incurred as a result of the required work including the cost of a survey and the fire alarm. However, it always made clear that it would only charge the resident as a last resort as it was committed to obtaining funding by alternative means.
The landlord did accept that an error occurred when the cost of upgrading a fire alarm panel had been taken from the sinking funds belonging to both blocks. The resident raised this point with the landlord, and it apologised for the oversight and took steps to put it right. Then, in accordance with the terms of the lease, it adjusted its 2020-21 year-end service charge statement to address that. Both steps were appropriate in the circumstances.
There was additional correspondence between the landlord and the resident over potential charges. It is noted the resident sought clarity on charges, but the evidence shows the landlord provided them with the information it had, at the time. On 24 May 2022, the landlord confirmed it would not pass on costs to leaseholders for any fire safety remediation works undertaken related to historic defects. It also would not pass on costs for work carried out relating to interim measures, including temporary alarm installations and evacuation management costs. This was reiterated in correspondence in July and August 2023 and the landlord also confirmed it would maintain the fire alarm system, at its own cost. Therefore, it took reasonable steps to update the resident, when it knew of its position.
It also managed the resident’s expectations in relation to third party claims. In September 2021, it said a claim against the developer would likely be time barred for the 2007 build, but it was working with legal teams to contact the developer from the 2010 build. It was later able to establish in August 2023, that the only route to recovering costs would be via the Cladding Safety Scheme.
The landlord gave the resident as much information as it could. It explained it could not share any other information, as it may jeopardise a potential claim. It had taken legal advice on its position, which it was reasonable for it to rely upon. Therefore, while the resident was keen to know more about third party claims and see evidence of action taken, the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord acted appropriately, in the circumstances.

Fire installation system and remediation

The landlord did communicate with the resident about the fire installation system, as it consulted as part of the Section 20 process. They were invited to provide their observations and the landlord then explained why it needed to be installed and informed the resident of the proposed date in advance of the installation.

The landlord explained that the remediation programme, needed to be “agile and responsive”, early on. This was effective expectation management, bearing in mind potential changes in government guidance and the number of buildings the landlord managed, which potentially needed remediation work. The timing of the works at the resident’s block did change, but the landlord had to continually juggle its priorities and respond to new government guidance. It said it would consult with the resident as the programme progressed. However, the survey and design work had occurred before work had been costed or a consultation carried out. Therefore, it was reasonable to explain that it could not consult on that specifically.
The work involved was significant. Therefore, as further guidance was likely to be issued by the government, it was appropriate for the landlord to satisfy itself that all the work planned, was actually needed. This is in line with its Fire Safety Management Procedure, which sets out its obligation to manage fire safety, in line with any emerging regulatory changes.
The resident was given further information by the landlord, after a fire risk assessment was carried out in February 2023, and the blocks were rated high risk. They were given the opportunity to review the assessment and were advised of the new start date; that being a start in the next financial year, 2024 to 2025. However, the landlord again managed the resident’s expectations, by explaining the date could be subject to change and could not be confirmed until 2024.
The Ombudsman has considered what was reasonable in the circumstances. The resident did submit a number of queries to the landlord and ask for information. However, they were provided with information at key times about the fire installation system and remediation programme. Therefore, the level of communication from the landlord was reasonable.

Complaint Handling

The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 20 October 2021. It was acknowledged on 27 October 2021, within 5 working days as per its Complaints Resolution Policy (the policy), and the landlord said it would issue a response by 10 November 2021, which it did.
The policy says, “We’ll acknowledge your complaint within five working days and appoint a lead officer to investigate. We aim to give you a full response within 10 working days.” The landlord’s current policy, which is on its website says it will provide a response to a complaint within 10 working days of the acknowledgement being sent. However, the version of the policy in place at the time of the complaint, just said a response would be sent within 10 working days. This implied within 10 working days of the complaint being made.
In this case, the landlord did not provide a response within 10 working days of the complaint being made; but, it did provide the resident with a date that it intended to respond by, which was reasonable. It then met that deadline, so the resident’s expectations were properly managed.
The landlord’s response was very detailed. It addressed all the points raised in the complaint; however, the resident remained unhappy and on 18 November 2021, asked for a review.
The policy is silent on timescales for carrying out a review; but it does say that once a review is done, the resident should be sent a copy within 10 working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 November 2021 and acknowledged a review had been requested, and it would occur on 21 December 2021. A complaint panel review meeting did take place on 21 December 2021 with the resident present and a detailed response was issued on 14 January 2022. While it is noted the resident remained unhappy, the Ombudsman is satisfied that it addressed all the issues raised. In addition, the landlord went one step further and met with the resident again to discuss the reasons for their concerns and followed that up with an email confirming next steps. It therefore showed it was committed to resolving the resident’s complaint and maintaining contact even after the end of its formal process.
The review was carried out shortly before the Christmas and New Year period. Therefore, taking in to account bank holidays, a response should have been sent by 7 January 2022. The landlord therefore failed to send a copy of the review to the resident within 10 working days, as per its policy.
If the landlord was unable to meet the timescales as set out in the policy, it should have advised the resident of that. However, the Ombudsman has to balance that with taking in to account the time of year, and staff often being on leave and the fact the response was only slightly delayed. In addition, there is no evidence of the resident having chased the landlord for its response during this time. Therefore, while the response was sent 5 working days late, this did not actually cause the resident any detriment, and does not amount to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s:
1. Communication about the resident’s fire safety concerns within the building.
2. Complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord provided regular updates to the resident in a number of ways, and responded to enquiries within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord provided detailed responses to the resident’s complaint and although its final response was delayed, this was minimal and caused no detriment to the resident.