St Albans City and District Council (202219922)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219922

St Albans City and District Council

19 February 2024

 

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 management of the section 20 consultation regarding service charges for roof renewal.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property, which is a 2-bedroom ground floor maisonette, since 4 November 2020. The landlord’s records showed that the resident had no known vulnerabilities however the resident has advised this Service that she is in receipt of disability benefit.
  2. The resident became the leaseholder of the property on 4 November 2020. On 5 November 2020 England entered a second national lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  3. A section 20 notice is generally needed if major works are required to a building which will cost any leaseholder more than a qualifying sum. The exact consultation process is determined by the nature of the contract in place to execute the works. Where the intended works are to be carried out under a qualifying long term agreement a section 20 consultation must still be exercised by the landlord unless works are needed urgently for health and safety reasons. The consultation involves the landlord ‘having regard’ to any observations made by residents within 30 days of notification and responding to them as appropriate.
  4. On 5 November 2020, two letters were sent to the property. Both letters contained the same information but one was addressed to the previous resident and the other was addressed to “the leaseholder”. The letters said that work was proposed at the property to renew the roof tiles, felt and battens, gutters and other associated works. The landlord said that it was its intention to carry out the work under an existing long-term agreement with a specified contractor, which they had previously consulted residents on. The resident’s contribution to this work would be £7633 + VAT. It said that “in accordance with section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended), we are required to consult with you about the work”. It went on to say that to reduce further damage to the property the landlord would be instructing the contractor to begin work as soon as possible. It invited written observations to be received within 30 days of the notice which would expire on 7 December 2020.
  5. On 21 June 2021 the landlord received a letter from the solicitor acting on behalf of the resident. Enclosed was the notice of transfer of the lease for the property dated 4 November 2020.
  6. On 18 January 2022 the resident emailed the landlord regarding a shed roof repair. The landlord responded to say that according to its records the resident was not the registered leaseholder of the property.
  7. The resident told the landlord on 23 January 2022 that the transfer documents had been sent to the landlord by her solicitor on 19 June 2021. She said that she had called the landlord several times to check if the records had been changed. She asked the landlord to email her to confirm that its records had been changed.
  8. The landlord responded on 2 February 2022. It confirmed that its records had now been updated. It advised the resident that she would shortly receive a service charge invoice for the property dated September 2021. The service charge invoice included a charge of £8322.73 for major works.
  9. On 13 February 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to ask it for a breakdown of the major works charge on the invoice. The landlord responded on 24 February 2022. It told the resident that a section 20 notice had been issued to the previous leaseholder and listed the roofing works that had been carried out “under the agreement”.
  10. On 28 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord, she said that she had tried to contact it by email and telephone but had not received a reply. She explained that she had purchased the property in November 2020 and the roof had been replaced some time between December and January 2020. She said that she had not been consulted about the roof and had she known about the cost she would not have purchased the property due to being 74 years old and in receipt of pension credit.
  11. The landlord responded on 4 May 2022 to say that it had not received legal documentation regarding the sale of the property until October 2021 even though it had been purchased in November 2020. It said that the letter including details of the planned chargeable work to the roof, dated 5 November 2020 and addressed to the leaseholder, was sent by post. It explained that the roof works were unplanned because, although it initially thought that repairs could be carried out, it had been advised that renewing the roof “was the only economically practical solution”.
  12. On 7 November 2022 the resident made a formal complaint. She said that she had moved into the property after purchasing it on 3 November 2020. She said that the landlord had started work on the roof on 26 November 2020 and completed it on 10 December 2020. She said that she had received no notification in advance of the work taking place and did not know about it until she received a large bill. She said that the landlord should have given her notice months before the work took place.
  13. The landlord sent its response on 17 November 2022. It said that after a request from the resident’s solicitor it had provided a leasehold information pack in July 2020. The solicitor sent it 2 further emails in October 2020, requesting an account statement, but had not provided an update about the progress of the sale of the property. Following a leak, it was decided that the roof was beyond repair and needed to be replaced. A section 20 notice dated 5 November 2020 was sent by post to the 2 properties affected, giving details of the proposed works and the estimated cost. The letter sent to the property was addressed to the leaseholder that the landlord had registered at that time. However, a separate identical letter was also sent to the property addressed to “the leaseholder” because the landlord knew that a sale was in progress. The landlord did not know that the sale of the property had happened until 21 June 2021 when it received the notice of transfer from the resident’s solicitor. The landlord felt that it had adhered to the consultation and notification requirements and could not have done any more to ensure that the information had reached the intended party.
  14. On 3 December 2022 the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord complaint process. The landlord asked which aspects of the stage 1 response the resident was unhappy with.
  15. The resident emailed the landlord on 8 December 2022. She said that she was unhappy that she had not been informed about the replacement of the roof before she signed the contract. The report provided by the landlord said that no major work was planned at that time. The resident said that if she had been told about the work she would not have signed the contract as she did not have enough funds left to pay for the roof. She said that she moved in on 3 November 2020 and the work took place on 26 November 2020 and asked what notice she should have received.
  16. On 4 January 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident and said that it needed to extend the deadline for its stage 2 complaints response to 17 January 2023.
  17. The landlord’s stage 2 response, dated 16 January 2023, gave a timeline of events. Within this it repeated that 2 section 20 notices had been sent to the resident’s address on 5 November 2020, one of which was addressed to “the leaseholder” as it knew that a sale had been agreed. The letter said that observations must be received in 30 days and that the consultation would end on 7 December 2020. The work was carried out in late November. The landlord said that it was satisfied that it did all it could to inform the resident by sending out 2 letters advising that work needed to be undertaken urgently. It offered the resident a 3-year interest free payment plan to pay the outstanding debt.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

  1. Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may 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. The level of service charge will not therefore be considered in this report. However, the landlord’s management of the section 20 procedure regarding the service charge will be considered.
  2. Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, 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. Where there is a dispute about whether or not a landlord has acted in accordance with the Section 20 consultation process, the matter can be referred to the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a determination. This service will, however, consider the landlords management of the section 20 process.

The landlord’s management of the section 20 consultation regarding service charges for roof renewal

  1. The resident became the leaseholder of the property on 4 November 2020 but her solicitor did not send the notice of transfer to the landlord for over 7 months. The landlord sent a section 20 consultation letter addressed to “the leaseholder” at the property the day after she moved in. Due to
    1. the national lockdown and
    2. the landlord not having been notified of the transfer of the lease

this is all it could have reasonably been expected to do as it could not visit the property and did not have a telephone number for the resident.

  1. In July 2020 the resident’s solicitor asked the landlord if any section 20 work was planned. At that time there were no planned works, however due to a roof leak, a roof replacement was later required urgently. The landlord said in the letter that it had a qualifying long-term agreement in place with a specific contractor for the roof repairs. This agreement had been consulted on previously. The resident’s solicitor did not ask whether any such agreements were in place. Therefore, the landlord had answered the solicitor’s questions to the best of its knowledge at that time and was not at fault.
  2. The landlord has been asked to provide a copy of the Qualifying Long Term Agreement that was in place to cover the roof works but has not done so. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord. Should the resident take the case to the First Tier Tribunal a copy of this will be necessary to prove that the correct consultation process was undertaken.
  3. The section 20 letter advised the resident that the consultation period ended on 7 December 2020, however work started on the roof on the 26 November 2020. This was a failure to follow the section 20 consultation process. The landlord is required to “have regard” to any written observations that residents make regarding the work during the consultation period and reply as appropriate. It could not have done this if the work was already nearing completion.
  4. If the roof replacement was necessary as a matter of urgency, such as for health and safety reasons, the landlord should have applied to the First Tier Tribunal for a dispensation from all or part of the consultation requirement under section 20. This Service has seen no evidence that this happened so this was also a failing by the landlord. Although the resident said that she did not receive the consultation letter and therefore could not have made observations the landlord did not know this and should have followed the procedure correctly. This error has led to a breakdown in the relationship with the landlord and the resident and caused her distress and inconvenience.
  5. The resident can take this case to the First Tier Tribunal which has the power to order that the landlord’s recoverable costs are capped at £250 or £100 if it considers that the section 20 procedure has not been complied with.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint handling code in place at the time stated that “a complaint must be defined as: an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents. The resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such”. The resident’s email of 28 April 2022 should have been treated as a complaint and failure to do this caused a delay of a further 6 months. This caused the resident further distress and inconvenience as she had to take extra time and trouble to contact the landlord again.
  2. The landlord failed to sign post the resident to the First Tier Tribunal which would have been appropriate under the circumstances. Failure to do this caused a further delay. The resident advised this Service that she had not been in debt before and it is possible that the case would have been resolved sooner had the signposting been made when the resident first alerted the landlord to the issue.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s management of the section 20 consultation regarding service charges for roof renewal.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
  2. Pay £450 in compensation direct to the resident, any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount. This is broken down as follows:
    1. £150 for time and trouble caused to the resident.
    2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. Provide the resident with signposting and advice on how to approach the First Tier Tribunal to request a review of the case.
  4. Apologise in writing to the resident for not allowing the full 30 days’ notice before starting the roof works.
  5. Undertake a strategic review of the learning from this case to avoid recurrence of the failings. The review should specifically make sure that there are adequate measures in place for:
    1. Signposting residents who raise complaints about service charges to the First Tier Tribunal in a timely manner.
    2. Identifying complaints and making sure that expressions of dissatisfaction are consistently treated as complaints and responded to accordingly.
    3. Making sure that statutory consultation periods are fully observed before any associated works are progressed.

           Evidence of this to be provided within 3 months of the date of this report.