Southern Housing Group Limited (202111826)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111826

Southern Housing Group Limited

28 June 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak to the communal area of their block.
2. Handling of required actions identified during a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA).
3. Adherence to Section 20 consultation requirements.
4. Complaint handling and communication.
5. Record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) and 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Adherence to Section 20 consultation requirements
This investigation notes that under paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.
This investigation also notes that under paragraph 42 (g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
This report will not therefore consider whether the charge for fire doors was reasonable and whether the landlord’s procedure adhered to Section 20 consultation requirements.
The appropriate body to consider complaints about the level of service charges is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT). The FTT deals with residential leasehold disputes between leaseholders and their landlords. It can make determinations on liability to pay a service charge, including the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord. The FTT can also decide if the charges were reasonably incurred.
The resident feels that the landlord’s approach is not cost effective, and there is dispute about whether the landlord followed proper procedure to legally recharge them. Therefore, this is in effect a dispute over the reasonableness of the major works charges, and the FTT would be best placed to determine this matter.
If the resident wishes for a binding determination as to whether the charge is payable, she should contact the FTT.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder who lives in a flat within a three-storey block (the block) of similar properties – the landlord is the freeholder.
The landlord is responsible for repairs to communal areas and for repairing internal and external structural elements of the building. Leaseholders are responsible for the repair and maintenance of the inside of their property, excluding structural items.
The lease specifies that, subject to payment of service charges, flat entrance doors are the responsibility of the landlord to “maintain repair redecorate and renew”. The lease obliges the resident to permit entry to the landlord to complete such works.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a target timescale for completing routine repairs, nor for repairs to communal areas, only that it will complete them “as quickly as possible”.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 and The Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 (the Regulations) set out the consultation requirements for major works which exceed certain amounts for leaseholders. The landlord should give notice in writing of an intention to carry out major works and describe the works; explain why they are necessary; state the estimated cost; invite observations on the proposed works and expenditure; and specify the deadline for when these can be made. If leaseholders wish to challenge service charges, they can apply to the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) to decide the reasonableness of the charges.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process:
1. Stage one complaints should be acknowledged within one working day and responded to within ten working days.
2. Stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that a payment will be made when there is evidence of a service failure for which the landlord is responsible which caused “loss, damage or inconvenience”. Examples of service failure include not following policy or procedure and failure and delay in completing repairs. The policy outlines the tariff for payments:
1. Delays to repairs – £10 plus £2 per day until to repair is complete to a maximum of £50. Compensation is not payable for delays to communal repairs and is also “not applicable for leaseholders as they are responsible for repairs within their property”.
2. Service failure – £25 to £50.
A FRA was carried out on the block on 15 September 2020. The assessment identified a number of actions which needed to be completed within three months of the report and included:
1. installing a fire alarm and detection system
2. replacing flat entrance doors with self-closing fire doors
3. considering installing fire resisting cable trays in escape routes.
The landlord’s FRA procedure (version one, effective September 2021) includes the following guidance about actions that impact leaseholder properties:
1. Once quotes have been received from contractors, if the cost of the works will exceed £250 per resident, a notice of intention letter (NOI) must be sent to all residents.
2. The NOI should detail the proposed works and provide a timeframe of at least 30 days for residents to comment on the proposals.
3. All comments on the NOI must be recorded and responded to.
4. At the end of the NOI period, a notice of estimate letter (NOE) should be sent to residents confirming the chosen contractor and estimated costs.
5. If the chosen contractor did not provide the cheapest quote, a notice of reason letter (NOR) must be sent to residents advising why they were chosen.
On 26 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord querying a new service charge that had been introduced in relation to new fire doors. This Service has not seen documentation outlining this charge.
On 23 March 2021 another leaseholder in the block contacted the landlord to report a leak in the entrance to the building which appeared to be coming from the roof. The landlord responded to advise it would investigate and resolve the leak and its repairs log shows that a job was raised to trace the leak.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that roofing contractors would be attending to the leak the following week. It also stated that a surveyor had identified that the leak was coming from water which had pooled on the roof rather than from a water source like a pipe or stack and that there was no risk of damage to the building.
The resident responded to the landlord by email on 19 April 2021. She pointed out that there were six water tanks on the roof and that this was where the leak was coming from. She stated that residents should not have to pay for repairing the damage which was because of “negligence” on the landlord’s part for leaving the leak to run down the brickwork “continuously for months”.
Internal landlord communications dated 19 April 2021 show that it had been aware of the leak since February 2021 and that despite residents escalating the matter in March 2021, they had received no response. The communication said that the repair had incorrectly been raised as a leak to a resident’s property rather than a leak to the communal area.
On 19 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord again to advise that contractors had come to repair the roof but did not fix the source of the leak. The resident pointed out that water was now leaking onto the newly completed roof repair and washing adhesive down the drain.
On 20 April 2021 the landlord logged the resident’s report as a formal complaint and sent her an acknowledgement email.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021 to advise that a puddle of water had accumulated on the roof since the roof repair. She also stated that no one had been back to inspect the issue since she raised it on 19 April 2021.
The landlord replied to the resident on 30 April 2021 advising that her email would be passed to her complaint handler. The resident responded the same day asking when someone would come to repair the roof.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 May 2021 and apologised for the time it was taking to resolve her complaint. The landlord advised it was aware that the repairs had not yet been completed and it would be “extending the complaint”. The resident replied to the landlord on the same day attaching a video of the “drip” to demonstrate that it was still ongoing.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that an order was raised to investigate “leaking water tanks via overflow” on 5 May 2021. The log does not show that any repairs relating to the leak had been raised between February 2021 and 5 May 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 May 2021 and apologised that the leak had not been rectified and advised it had contacted the repairs team for an update. The repairs team advised that a plumber would attend the same day. This Service has not seen any further documentation relating to the plumber’s visit.
An internal landlord communication dated 14 May 2021 shows that the resident had made contact again to advise that the leak continued. Also on 14 May 2021 the landlord’s repairs log shows that an inspection of the water tanks was raised.
On 19 May 2021 the landlord provided a stage one complaint response to the resident. It stated:
1. Its contractor would attend on 19 May 2021 to inspect the water tanks.
2. It was aware that the leak had been going on for some time and there had been many visits to rectify the issue.
3. The complaint would remain open with an action plan to ensure works were completed to a good standard and the leak resolved.
The resident replied to the landlord on 19 May 2021 advising that it needed to inspect the roof repair as the area repaired had been under a pool of water since the works were carried out. This service has not seen any evidence that the landlord responded to this email.
Internal landlord emails dated 3 June 2021 demonstrate that it was considering access issues to the room that housed the water tanks.
The landlord’s repair log shows that on 10 June 2021 work was raised to repair the water tanks.
On 21 July 2021 an internal landlord communication shows that the source of the leak had been identified as a collapsed water tank. The tank required disconnecting and two or three other tanks also required renewal. The landlord was awaiting quotes before moving forward. This Service has not seen evidence that the source of the leak was identified before this date.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 July 2021 to advise that the overflow from the water tank was still splashing against the walls and that that she was concerned this may have caused damp in her bathroom.
An internal landlord email of 27 July 2021 shows that the leak had been ongoing for five months, the staff member stated they were “unclear on what is being done to resolve this as there have been multiple visits but remains unresolved”. The email described the leaseholders in the block as “rightly furious about [the landlord’s] inadequate response”.
In response to the above email, also on 27 July 2021, the repairs team stated that the leak was close to being resolved. There had been delays caused by limited space in the loft where the water tanks were located but a specialist contractor had been instructed and they were waiting for a start date for the works.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 20 August 2021 to advise that she had not received a response from the landlord since 20 April 2021. This is contradicted by evidence provided by the landlord which shows that it provided the stage one complaint response on 19 May 2021. This service contacted the landlord advising that it should respond to the resident. The landlord stated that it would raise a stage two complaint as a stage one response had already been provided.
Landlord records show that the water tanks were replaced and associated works completed on 15 September 2021.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord provided a stage two response letter. The letter stated:
1. The resident’s complaint was regarding an ongoing leak from the water tanks, the damage this may cause, and the costs this may incur for the leaseholders.
2. The resident had also requested confirmation that outstanding actions had been completed following a fire risk assessment completed in September 2020. The actions were due to be completed within three months of the assessment.
3. The landlord’s contractor had identified the source of the leak to be from the water tanks in the loft, some of which were overflowing. Some tanks needed replacing and others re-routing.
4. The contractor assessed the building and found “no significant damage or long-lasting impact” following the leak. A specialist contractor was appointed and the speed of completion was impacted by the extremely limited space within the loft which left no room to stand or turn.
5. The works were now complete and after a period of drying-out any internal remedial works would be carried out.
6. Most of the diagnostic work had been carried out under the contractor’s ‘price per property contract’ and so was not chargeable.
7. The repairs completed by the specialist contractor would be charged back to leaseholders the following year and were below the Section 20 threshold.
8. At the time of the response the landlord was awaiting confirmation of whether the final two points on the FRA had been completed. All other identified actions had been completed and the landlord provided completion dates.
In the stage two complaint response, the landlord gave the following outcome:
1. The landlord did not uphold the complaint that the landlord had failed in responding to the leak. The leak had been resolved and appropriate action was being taken to make good any damage. The time taken to resolve the leak was due to “logistical challenges…in the confined roof space” and long-term effects of the leak on the building had been minimised. The cost to residents of the works had been minimised, were below Section 20 levels, and would be recharged in line with leaseholder terms.
2. It upheld that the landlord had failed to maintain communication as it was unable to evidence that there had been sufficient communication with residents about the work. Improvements were required to keep residents informed about required works and timescales.
3. It upheld the complaint that there was a lack of clarity relating to outstanding FRA actions as it had been unable to evidence whether two had been completed, this had been escalated.
4. The landlord offered the resident £25 as a goodwill gesture in recognition of its service failures. It also offered £70 compensation for the failure of a communal amenity. The landlord had calculated this amount as 15% of the resident’s service charge and management fee from her stage one complaint in May 2021.
The resident responded to the landlord’s stage two response on 20 September 2021. She stated:
1. The overflow pipe was still leaking, therefore the repairs could not be considered complete.
2. Contrary to the landlord’s response letter, “extensive and visible” damage had been caused to the brickwork and there was also damp present.
On 15 October 2021 the resident contacted this Service and advised she was unhappy with the landlord’s final response to her complaint because:
1. She was concerned that the leaking water tank had caused damp in her bathroom and the communal entrance was cold and damp.
2. The landlord had not yet installed a fire alarm and detection system as raised in the FRA on 25 September 2020.
3. New cable trays installed following the FRA were not fit for purpose and were “aesthetically displeasing”.
4. The landlord had failed to consult residents about the installation of new fire doors to flat entrances, including the supplier. She felt the landlord had failed to consider the expense, including whether there were less costly options, and aesthetics of the doors.
5. She was unhappy with the aesthetics of the doors as they were all different colours, the closer was on the outside, and they had Victorian knockers and handles.
On 5 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord. She referred to a meeting between the landlord and leaseholders in which she stated the landlord had offered to “compensate for the mismanagement of the process of installing firesafe doors by removing the management fee”. She stated that:
1. The price of the fire doors was not competitive and didn’t reflect the market cost and that leaseholders were being profited from as leaseholders were being charged £2334.57 ‘final resident contribution’.
2. The landlord had advised, in response to leaseholder complaints about the style of the new fire doors, that the doors had been ordered and so could not be changed.
3. The doors would negatively impact the aesthetics of the flats and therefore their financial value.
4. The doors were inferior to the existing doors as they only had one lock (the existing doors had both a deadlock and a latch).
5. Allowing residents to choose their door colour would “deteriorate the integrity of the common parts and our individual properties”.
The landlord replied to the resident’s email on 16 February 2022 and advised that it had “already addressed all points raised and [could] give no further information on the same points”. It stressed that delaying the mandatory fire safety works may put other residents at risk and that the resident may now be in breach of her lease by refusing to provide the landlord access to complete the works.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s reports of a leak to the communal area of their block

The resident first reported the leak in March 2021, the landlord’s internal communications however show that it had been aware of the leak since February 2021. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord attended to inspect or repair the leak until 19 April 2021 when its contractors attended to patch repair the roof mistakenly thinking this to be the source of the leak. It was unreasonable that the landlord delayed in investigating the leak for two months after it was reported.
An internal landlord email dated 19 April 2021 stated that the leak had incorrectly been raised as a leak to a resident’s property rather than a leak to the communal area. This is indicative of a record keeping issue and is likely to have prevented effective monitoring of the repair and caused delays to the completion of the repair. Whilst this Service understands that errors happen, the landlord has not acknowledged this failure or outlined steps to prevent a recurrence.
The resident pointed out to the landlord in her communication of 19 April 2021 that the leak was coming from the water tanks. Despite this, this Service has seen no evidence to show that the tanks were investigated until 14 May 2021. The tanks were not confirmed as the source of the leak until 21 July 2021 – four months after it was reported by the resident. The landlord therefore delayed unreasonably in actively investigating and identifying the source of the leak.
When the water tanks were identified as the source of the leak, it took a further eight weeks for the repair to be completed. Whilst the landlord stated in its complaint response that the challenging and confined working environment added to the delay, it with its contractor had a responsibility to identify how best to progress the works. It is not evident that the landlord did this in a prompt or urgent manner, nor is there any evidence that it updated the resident of the further delay. This exacerbated her distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not provide a target timescale for completing routine repairs nor repairs to communal areas. This leaves the issue open to interpretation which may cause conflict about whether a timescale is satisfactory. In the absence of set policy timeframes, the landlord had a responsibility to provide the resident with a timeframe for the repairs, and keep her updated on progress of the repair, so as to manage her expectations. This did not happen here and this Service does not consider it reasonable that it took the landlord over six months to resolve the leak.
The leak was in a communal area. As a leaseholder, the resident was reasonably concerned that damage to this area would negatively impact the value of her own property and this caused her distress. The resident advised the landlord on 25 July 2021 that she felt that the leak was causing damp in her bathroom. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord investigated this report. This is unreasonable as the resident was stating that the damp had arisen as a result of the landlord not fulfilling its repair obligation. This added to the resident’s distress. The landlord could have advised the resident whether she could make a claim on its building insurance given that the damage was caused by a leak from a communal area. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord did so.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the reasons for the delays and that they were unreasonable, this further distressed the resident. The landlord’s failures in carrying out an active and timely investigation into the source of the leak caused an unreasonable delay in completing the repair and its failings amount to maladministration.

Handling of required actions identified during a Fire Risk Assessment

The Regulatory Reform Fire Safety Order 2005 (the Order) outlines that the landlord of multi-occupied residential buildings must carry out a fire assessment “regularly” in communal areas. The landlord must make sure precautions and procedures are in place to protect occupants in case of fire.
The FRA carried out on 15 September 2020 was a Type 1 risk assessment. The purpose of this type of assessment is to ensure that common parts of a building have the appropriate arrangements to allow people to escape in case of a fire. The FRA identified 11 actions that were to be completed within a deadline of three months. The landlord stated within its stage two complaint response to the resident that seven of the actions within the FRA had been completed.
The completion dates for the FRA actions that the landlord provided the resident were all outside of the three-month timescale given in the FRA – some were overdue by as much as ten weeks. While this is not ideal, the fact that this occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic must be taken into account. The landlord had previously notified the Ombudsman upon request that the pandemic was likely to impact its ability to deliver services in a timely fashion.
Although it is not a given that the pandemic would always have a negative impact on the landlord’s ability to provide all services on time, it is reasonable to assume there would be some impact. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to inform the resident within its complaint response that the pandemic was impacting its ability to comply or demonstrate compliance with the FRA Orders, if this was the case.
The resident has said that the landlord failed to demonstrate it had complied with the following orders in the FRA by the deadline of 25 December 2020:

“Top floor lobby doors not closing shut, maintenance required.”
“It must be confirmed that the emergency lighting system is being maintained with records kept.”
“A fire alarm and detection system should be installed.”

These actions were recorded as medium risk which meant that “outbreak of fire could foreseeably result in injury (including serious injury) of one or more occupants, but it is unlikely to involve multiple fatalities
At review stage of the Ombudsman’s procedure, the landlord provided further evidence to show the top floor lobby doors had been repaired on 26 February 2021. That this record was not provided for the original investigation indicates an issue with record keeping on the part of the landlord. Further, although it is reasonable to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic would have impacted the landlord’s ability to keep to its own deadlines regarding repairs and maintenance, it was not reasonable that it took until 26 February 2021 to complete the action related to the fire doors. This is because although the landlord may have had issues with gaining access to individual properties at this time due to the government measures in place, this would not have impacted its ability to access communal areas of its properties.
Also at review stage, the landlord provided evidence that it said demonstrated it had complied with the outstanding action related to the emergency lighting system.
Although the further evidence provided by the landlord shows it has conducted some maintenance of the emergency lighting in both 2020 and 2022, full records detailing the actions to maintain the emergency lighting system were not provided to the Ombudsman. As such, the landlord has not demonstrated that it complied with the order in relation to ensuring it should confirm that the emergency lighting system is being maintained with records kept [emphasis added]. Once again, this indicates an issue with the landlord’s record keeping.
Also at review stage, the landlord explained that it was not required to demonstrate it had complied with the action to ensure a fire alarm and detection system was installed as it said it is only responsible for fitting fire alarms in its tenanted properties. It also provided evidence that it wrote to leasehold residents to inform them of their obligations to install a suitable system within their properties. It has said that in doing this, it fulfilled its obligations to residents.
The aim of the resident’s complaint was to establish whether the actions had been completed in the block as a whole. This is a reasonable request as the resident has the right to know the block they live in is safe, even if it is their own responsibility to take some of the required measures themselves within their own property. The landlord implicitly acknowledged this when it sought to confirm to the resident in its complaint response that all actions (even those which did not relate to them specifically) had been complied with.
As such, while the landlord’s actions in informing the resident of their responsibilities regarding the installation of a fire detection system was reasonable, it still failed to demonstrate (either to the resident or to this Service) that the order had been complied with generally. It could, for example, have informed the resit that it had written to the leaseholders of the property, and could confirm that all tenanted properties had compliant systems installed. That it did not do this was a failure.
The evidence suggests the landlord failed to confirm to this Service and the resident that the action related to the top floor doors was completed. This information was only forthcoming at the review stage of the Ombudsman’s procedure.
It also failed to demonstrate that fire alarm detection systems had been fitted (either by itself or by individual leaseholders) to either this Service or to residents.
The landlord also failed to explain any impacts the pandemic was having upon its abilities to complete the actions in the FRA to the resident.
Further, that the landlord acknowledges it found there “appears to be a lack of ownership or knowledge of the items that are outstanding” within its stage two complaint response to the resident demonstrates that its abilities to ensure these actions were completed was lacking. It is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient ownership and oversight of actions to be taken in response to its assessments. For fire risk assessments, this is particularly important due to the risk to the health and safety of residents.
It is of significant concern that the landlord was not able to provide this Service with sufficient evidence that the above FRA actions have been completed more than two years after the deadline for their completion. This indicates both an issue with record keeping, that actions are not being completed in a timely fashion and that it failed to demonstrate the building is safe. This is a serious failing which amounts to severe maladministration. There is further evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
The FRA carried out in September 2020 also stated that “flat entrance doors should be replaced with FD30s self-closing fire doors”. This action was again recorded as medium risk and given a completion deadline of 25 December 2020.
The resident has stated that she is unhappy with the aesthetics of the doors chosen by the landlord, specifically that they are primary colours and that residents have been allowed to choose their preferred colour resulting in doors that do not match. Whilst this Service acknowledges the resident’s view that the doors would be more aesthetically pleasing if there were all the same colour, the terms of the lease do not oblige the landlord to replace the doors in matching colours.
The lease agreement states that, subject to payment of service charges, flat entrance doors are the responsibility of the landlord to “maintain repair redecorate and renew”. The lease also requires the resident to permit entry to the landlord to complete such works. As such, the landlord was correct in its 16 February 2022 letter when it stated that the resident may now be in breach of her lease by refusing to provide the landlord access to complete the works.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was appropriate for the landlord to determine that the flat entrance doors had to be replaced to comply with the FRA. The evidence demonstrates that the flat doors have not yet been replaced as the resident, along with other leaseholders in the building, are unhappy with the cost and design of the replacement doors. This issue is discussed further below.

Complaint handling and communication

The landlord adhered to the timeline in its complaints policy in responding to the resident’s stage one and stage two complaints.
Following the landlord’s stage one complaint response on 19 May 2021 the resident had to chase it for an update on the outstanding leak repair on four occasions between 26 March 2021 and 25 July 2021. When the repair remained outstanding on 20 August 2021 the resident contacted this Service. The resident had to invest time and trouble contacting the landlord and then felt compelled to contact the Ombudsman when, after almost six months, the repair had not been completed.
The landlord’s stage one and stage two responses failed to acknowledge that it had incorrectly raised the leak as being within the resident’s property rather than communal and that this likely increased the delays to repairing the leak. It also failed to acknowledge that it did not investigate the water tanks for a month after it was pointed out by the resident that they were the likely source of the leak identify the source of the leak, again delaying their repair. This is not in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle ‘Put it Right’. Landlords should identify and acknowledge what went wrong and why – the landlord omitted to do so in this case.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that residents are not entitled to compensation for delays to repairs to communal areas. This Service suggests that it would be more appropriate for the landlord to determine whether compensation is payable based on the impact that the delay had on the resident rather than the location of the repair. Blanket policies can prevent landlords from considering the particular circumstances of a complaint which can lead to unfair outcomes.
The figures provided within the landlord’s compensation framework are not in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord outlines that £25 to £50 is payable in case of service failure. The guidance of this Service is that £50 to £100 is considered reasonable redress in cases of service failure with minimal, short-term impact on a resident. Ombudsman guidance suggests compensation of £100 to £600 is reasonable in cases of maladministration where the failure adversely affected the resident.
In its stage two complaint response landlord offered the resident a total of £95. This comprised £25 in recognition of its service failures and £70 for the failure of a communal amenity. It is the view of this Service, that whilst this amount exceeds its compensation policy, the landlord’s offer of compensation does not provide proportionate redress for its failure to address the leak in a timely manner.
Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and she was compelled to invest an unreasonable amount of time and trouble in chasing the landlord for a response. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings regarding record keeping, failure to actively investigate the leak, and delays in carrying out the work. It therefore did not demonstrate learning from its mistakes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:

Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak to the communal area of their block.
Severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of required actions identified during a Fire Risk Assessment (FRA).
Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling and communication.
Maladministration in relation to the landlord’s record keeping

Reasons

The landlord failed to actively investigate the source of the leak in a timely manner. This caused an unreasonable delay in completing the repair.
The landlord failed to demonstrate it had completed all the actions identified by it’s own FRA. Whilst the installation of new flat entrance doors has been delayed due to conflict with leaseholders, this Service has seen no such explanation for the remaining actions. The purpose of FRA’s is to reduce the risk of injury or death to occupants should a fire occur and failure to address known hazards or deficiencies across such an extended period of time is unacceptable.
The landlord has failed to communicate effectively with the resident causing her undue time and trouble and distress. The landlord did not acknowledge its failings and therefore has not demonstrated that it has learned from outcomes.

Orders and Recommendations

Orders

87. It is ordered that within six weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord must:

88. Provide a letter of apology from a senior manager to the resident in writing or in person.

89. Pay the resident £1,360 which comprises:

£360 for delays in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

£750 for its failures in handling action identified by the FRA.

£250 for its communication failings. (This amount replaces the £95 previously offered by the landlord. If the landlord has already made payment of £95 this should be deducted from the compensation ordered in this report).

90. The landlord to ensure that the following outstanding actions identified by the FRA are completed and evidence of this is provided to this Service and residents:

Confirmation is to be provided that the emergency lighting system is being maintained and records kept;

Fire alarm and detection systems have been installed.

93. If it has not done so within the last six months, the landlord to commission a new FRA for the block within four weeks of the date of this report. The landlord should provide a copy of the FRA to this Service and affected leaseholders within two weeks of completion off the assessment. The landlord should provide this Service and affected leaseholders with proof of compliance with all required actions identified no later than 31 October 2024.

Recommendations

94. The landlord to review its compensation framework and consider making amendments in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of its intentions regarding the recommendations within four weeks of the date of this report