The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202127594)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127594

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

29 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

  1. The resident’s requests for information about the nature, extent and cost of ongoing cyclical works.
  2. Information requested by the resident’s solicitor to progress the sale of her property.

Background and summary of events

Scope of Investigation

2.             The resident refers to costs of service charges and cyclical work charges as part of her complaint. To give context to the complaint, reference is made within the summary of events to this part of the complaint. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to determine the cost of service charges or cyclical works. It is more appropriate for this part of the complaint to be dealt with through the First-Tier Tribunal and the resident is advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service.

Background

3.             The resident was the leaseholder of her flat situated within a 3-storey building.  The resident has since sold the property.

4.             The landlord has provided the lease for the property dated 2007, which predates the resident occupying the property. It showed leaseholders are obliged to maintain, repair and procure the maintenance of the roof and structure, pipes, sewers and common parts. The resident is obliged to pay the rent and service charge costs (including a proportion of cyclical work charges).

5.             Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states a landlord must consult leaseholders who are required under the terms of their lease to contribute (by payment of service charges) to costs incurred under ‘qualifying works’ where the contribution of any one leaseholder exceeds £250. ‘Qualifying works’ are defined within the 1985 Act.

6.             The landlord’s ‘cyclical maintenance’ contract has been provided to this Service outlining the specification of works that includes basic external repairs, maintenance and decoration works.

Summary of events

7.             The landlord’s records showed that on 17 April 2020, it sent the resident a  ‘notice of intention’ letter. This was in relation to its intention to carry out cyclical works under a contract it had previously consulted leaseholders about. It said the intended works were “external redecoration and associated repairs”. It explained the works were necessary to maintain the fabric and structure of the building. The landlord also outlined the estimated costs of work to be £21,694.48 and the resident’s estimated share of costs would be £2,711.81. It asked for the resident’s views in writing by 2 June 2020.

8.             On 17 May 2020, the resident expressed concerns to the landlord that she had not been given details of the proposed work. She asked the landlord for a letter that included a breakdown of the intended work.

9.             The landlord responded to the resident on 19 May 2020 when it explained that a large proportion of the costs were due to scaffolding. It clarified various resident questions and gave a list of service charges and a breakdown of costs.  It also explained that it had consulted with residents on the cyclical works (between October 2015 and May 2016) and then within the notice dated April 2020. It said it would proceed with the work and take comments into account as per the consultation process.

10.        The landlord’s records showed that on 8 June 2020, it sent the resident an email with its proposed estimated costs for cyclical works. It said it had previously outlined these costs in a notice as per Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to the previous owner occupier on 13 May 2016. The email noted the resident’s account was not set up until 27 May 2016, and it did not appear the resident had been informed of the work when she bought the property. It said that it would not know the final costs of the work until it was completed.

11.        The landlord sent a letter to the resident the same day with details of when the work would commence, which was between June 2020 and March 2021.

12.        Various landlord and resident communication took place during March 2021. The resident wanted clarification on a list of questions she had asked the landlord about the work and costs. When the landlord responded to the resident on 1 April 2021, it attached a cost breakdown and it explained the sale process about placing her home on the market and the sales pack she could obtain from the landlord.

13.        On 10 September 2021, the resident asked the landlord further questions about the intended work costs as she was unsure why her intended charge had changed to £1965.08. The previous estimate the landlord had provided was a higher cost. The landlord responded to the resident the same day with a breakdown of costs.

14.        On 11 October 2021 the landlord’s records showed it emailed the resident to acknowledge receipt of her formal complaint about the following: 

  1. Cyclical works
    1. The resident had received a notice for the cost of estimate cyclical works in April 2020.
    2. The resident objected to the work and the landlord had said the work would go ahead if they were deemed as necessary works.
    3. The resident said the work was carried out in April 2021 without prior notice.
    4. The resident asked the landlord for the final cost when the work was completed but the landlord said it could only estimate the figure and the final cost would be provided in the year end statement due in September 2021.
    5. The resident was unclear why the final cost was not known after completion of the work.
    6. The resident had received the year end accounts but the statement was not clear to her.
    7. The resident did not believe the costs being charged were justifiable for the work carried out.
  2. Delay in sale of property
    1. The resident said the sale of her home was being delayed because the landlord had failed to provide information requested by her solicitor and she believed the landlord’s information was contradictory.

15.        The landlord sent another letter to the resident on the same date. It gave an update on planned works for 2020 to 2021. It explained that due to COVID-19 it had not been able to progress work until recently.

16.        Communications continued between the resident and landlord throughout October 2021. The resident remained unclear about the landlord’s actions as she said it had not answered all of her questions and responded in ‘jargon’ about cyclical decoration works. She requested her dissatisfaction about the landlord’s poor standard of communication was included as part of her complaint. The landlord responded the same day to clarify that the delay in providing the information required to progress the sale of the property had been logged as a formal complaint. It stated the service charge part aspect of her complaint would be dealt with separately by the service charge team.

17.        The resident’s solicitor sent correspondence to the landlord on 21 October 2021 chasing up a response to previously sent correspondence from August 2021. The landlord responded to the solicitor the following day and apologised for an error it had made by sending a relevant email to the wrong recipient. The landlord said it would be dealt with as part of the resident’s formal complaint.

18.        On 22 October 2021, the landlord sent the resident correspondence stating it required more time to respond to her solicitor and to investigate her formal complaint. It said it would respond to her by 3 November 2021. The resident continued to contact the landlord with concerns about delays to receive answers to her questions.

19.        The landlord’s records showed it replied to the resident’s solicitor on 2 November 2021 with a response to enquiries about the sale of the property.

20.        Correspondence continued between the resident, her solicitor and the landlord during early November 2021. The landlord sent the resident the service charge breakdown and the resident continued to chase up her queries to specific questions she had asked the landlord. The resident highlighted the urgency of the situation when she explained to the landlord her property buyer’s mortgage offer expired on 21 November 2021 and she was concerned she would lose the sale. She was concerned the landlord was not meeting its acceptable service standards one of which is to keep resident’s informed.

21.        The landlord replied to the resident’s complaint with its formal stage 1 response on 5 November 2021 and it explained the following findings:

  1. Delayed sale of property
    1. The landlord sent the solicitor’s correspondence to the wrong internal department  and caused the landlord not to respond. The landlord apologised for its error. It said that feedback had been given to its staff to ensure this type of situation did not happen again.
  2. Cyclical works
    1. It had clarified that the cyclical work costs would be dealt with through its service charge dispute resolution policy and not through its complaints policy. It gave the resident advice on how to raise her concerns with the service charge team.

22.        Correspondence between the resident and landlord continued during November 2021. On 18 November 2021, the resident requested that the landlord escalate her complaint. The resident explained to the landlord that she had not received its reply about the cyclical works and service charges. She was concerned as she had been trying to find information out since April 2020. In addition, the resident requested details of the work and questioned why a ‘cherry picker’ and scaffold had been required. She also expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s cleaning services in relation to her window ledge.

23.        The landlord responded to the resident on 19 November 2021 and it explained the following:

  1. It was chasing up the original outstanding response to the solicitor.
  2. It was liaising with its service charge team to provide a response about the cyclical works and service charges.
  3. It could arrange a complaint review panel meeting (stage 2 complaint) on either 29 December 2021 or 5 January 2022 and it asked the resident to let it know if she wanted to proceed with the hearing.

24.        The resident responded to the landlord to confirm she wanted to go ahead with the stage 2 complaint review hearing.

25.        The landlord’s complaint review panel met to hear the resident’s complaint on 7 January 2021. The resident said:

  1. The landlord’s lack of communications and delayed response had resulted in the delay of the sale of her home.
  2. The information provided about the cyclical works had not been clear. The landlord’s correspondence had shown different costs and therefore the resident could not be confident that the information was correct.
  3. The resident referred to the use of a ‘cherry picker’ and scaffold that she felt was excessive.
  4. The cleaning of her window ledge was not completed to a good standard.
  5. The resident commented that she had been asking for clarity on the issues since April 2020.

26.        On 21 January 2022, the landlord sent the resident its outcome response from the complaint review panel as follows:

  1. Sale of property – It said it was clear there had been an error from the landlord and poor communications that led to delays and it apologised for this.
  2. Standard of works – It was satisfied the work met the required standard in relation to the quality of window cleaning, the use of a cherry picker and scaffold .
  3. In summary, it apologised for the resident’s time pursuing the complaint and the delays she experienced in the communications regarding the sale of her home. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation.

Summary of events after landlord’s final complaint process

27.        The landlord’s records showed on 3 February 2022, the resident contacted her MP about her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s final complaint response.

28.        The MP contacted the landlord on 10 February 2022 to raise the complaint in relation to the cleaning of window ledges. The MP also expressed the resident’s dissatisfaction about the attention given to her complaint and she felt that an apology which acknowledged all the details of the failures was due but had not been issued.

29.        The landlord’s records showed that it responded to the MP on 2 March 2022 referring to its final complaint response. The landlord considered the poor standard of cleaning to the window ledges and it acknowledged the work was not carried out to its expected standard and it would  therefore reimburse £109.20 (the cost of the service) back to the resident. This was in addition to the £150 compensation it had already offered the resident.

30.        The sale of the resident’s home was finalised around May 2022 and on 10 June 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to chase up the compensation payment. The resident confirmed to this Service on 13 August 2022 that the landlord had authorised the compensation but she was still waiting for the payment. It is unclear when or if the payment was made to the resident.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s requests for information about the nature, extent and cost of ongoing cyclical works.

Information requested by the resident’s solicitor to progress the sale of her property.

31.        The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to:

  1. Be fair;
  2. Put things right; and
  3. Learn from outcomes.

These principles will be applied throughout this assessment.

32.        The landlord demonstrated it responded to the resident early June 2020 with details of the estimated costs of the works. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided the full details of the cyclical works to the resident and this was unreasonable given the resident’s concerns and her lack of knowledge about the intended works.

33.        The landlord explained to the resident that the original Section 20 ‘notice of intention’ to start work was sent to the previous owner of the property in 2016 and it appeared that the owner had not informed the resident of the proposed work. As part of the conveyancing process, the prospective buyer would normally receive information about any planned works affecting the property from the solicitor and it is unclear why this did not happen in the resident’s case. However, upon establishing post sale that the resident did not know about the detail of the cyclical works, it is reasonable the landlord should establish communications with a new resident and ensure they are fully aware of forthcoming works affecting the property.

34.        The resident continued to request information from the landlord about the cyclical works and it is evident that she sent in numerous correspondence to the landlord requesting details that continued throughout March 2021 to September 2021. Although the landlord has demonstrated it responded to the resident, it failed to clearly outline the works and this no doubt caused the resident frustrations continually chasing up the landlord for the information. The landlord provided the estimated costs of the work (albeit the estimate changed throughout the communication) but not about the actual cyclical work it intended to complete. It appeared this work was completed at the property April 2021 as work had been delayed due to COVID-19 restrictions.

35.        The resident’s solicitor sent correspondence to the landlord in August 2021. This Service has not been provided with that correspondence as part of the information provided by the landlord. The solicitor then sent chase up correspondence to the landlord in late October 2021. The landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for its late response.

36.        The resident raised a complaint to the landlord mid-October 2021 and early November 2021, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed it was inappropriate for it to respond about the cyclical work costs as part of the complaint. If the complaint had been about the cost of cyclical works alone then this would have to be dealt with through the landlord’s service charge dispute resolution policy and ultimately the First-Tier Tribunal. However, it failed to recognise the resident’s complaint about the lack of clarity in relation to details of cyclical works and this was inappropriate and this led to further delays and chase ups for the resident.

37.        The landlord’s evidence showed various communications between the resident and landlord in October 2021. The resident remained dissatisfied and the landlord appropriately registered the resident’s complaint (mid-October 2021).

38.        The resident requested the landlord escalate her complaint mid November 2021 and the landlord appropriately confirmed to the resident its plan to arrange a complaint review panel hearing in line with its complaints policy. The hearing took place early January 2022 and the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident late January 2022. The response appropriately acknowledged its poor communications in relation to its delayed response to the solicitor enquiries but not specifically in relation to its communications about the cyclical works.

39.        During November 2021, it was clear that the resident was becoming increasingly frustrated due to the landlords part in the delays with the sale of her home. The landlord evidenced it responded to the resident’s solicitor early November 2021. In its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint, the landlord acknowledged its service failure, apologised to the resident and stated it was willing to learn from its failure by following this up internally with the relevant department.

40.        The resident escalated her complaint in mid-November 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day and explained its intention to arrange a complaint review panel (the next step in the landlord’s complaints process).

41.        The landlord’s complaint review panel met in early January 2021 and responded to the resident’s complaint late January 2022. It appropriately acknowledged the error in its delayed and poor communications with the resident and it offered compensation of £150.

42.        In February 2022, the resident contacted her MP. In exchanged correspondence between the MP and the landlord, the landlord demonstrated that it reviewed the resident’s complaint. It explained to the MP that it had already acknowledged the delays and communication issue in relation to its response to the resident’s solicitor and reiterated its offer of £150 in recognition of the service failure it had identified.

43.        The complaint continued after the landlord’s complaint process had ended. The resident contacted her MP for help early February 2022. The landlord demonstrated that it reviewed the complaint and in the landlord’s correspondence to the MP early March 2022 although it acknowledged an issue with the poor quality of window ledge cleaning and refunded the resident the costs, it did not acknowledge or respond about its communications in relation to details of the cyclical work. This is of concern given the landlord’s commitment to keep residents informed as part of its service standard. The resident had to make numerous attempts to obtain the information, she had specifically requested this to be part of her complaint and this no doubt added to the resident’s frustrations.

44.        It appeared there was a delay in the landlord issuing the compensation offer and by August 2022, the resident confirmed to this Service that she was still waiting for the payment.

45.        In summary, during the resident’s requests for information about the cyclical works, it is apparent that the first Section 20 consultation was in 2016 prior to the resident occupying the property. Therefore the resident was not aware of the intended works until April 2020 when the landlord started its consultation process again. It is usual practice for communication on any known intended work to take place as part of the sale process and the responsibility of the resident’s solicitor to inform of any such works. However, it is reasonable that the landlord should have a process in place to identify and communicate with new resident’s at its earliest opportunity.

46.        It is of concern that the landlord did not provide full details of the intended work and despite the resident’s numerous chase ups with the landlord, there was no evidence that the full schedule of works was provided to the resident. When the resident complained to the landlord, it missed a further opportunity to address the resident’s concerns and this no doubt impacted the resident causing frustration and inconvenience with her numerous chase ups she had to make to the landlord and this amounts to maladministration.

47.        In relation to the information requested by the resident’s solicitor to progress the sale of her property, the landlord mishandled the conveyance information request from the solicitor that was apparently sent to the landlord in August 2021. The landlord did not send the solicitor the relevant information until early November 2021 which resulted in a 3-month delay. While the landlord acknowledged its failure, it delayed in doing so until its stage 2 complaint response when it apologised and offered the resident £150 compensation. This falls short of what the Ombudsman expects for this level of failure and it would be more appropriate for a compensation payment of £250 to be made to the resident. This is because it was clear the delayed sale of the resident’s home was having a considerable impact on her, she had expressed concerns of potentially losing the sale and constantly chased up the landlord for a response and this no doubt caused distress and inconvenience to the resident. 

Determination (decision)

48.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the resident’s requests for information about the nature, extent and cost of ongoing cyclical works.

49.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the Information requested by the resident’s solicitor to progress the sale of her property.

Reasons

50.        The landlord failed to provide detailed information to the resident in relation to the cyclical works and what they entailed. The landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns when it responded through its complaints process.

51.        While the landlord acknowledged its delay in responding to the resident’s solicitor about the sale of the property, the offer of compensation falls short of what the Ombudsman would expect for the considerable impact caused to the resident and the delayed sale of her property. 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

52. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord to:

  1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified within this report.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £500 (including the £150 it had already offered the resident).

53.        Within 8 weeks of this report, the landlord to consider the failings identified within this report and review how it will improve its future communications with leaseholders including new residents about the cyclical works it intends to carry out at properties.

54.        The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with orders within the timescales set out above.