Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Town and Country Housing (202315736)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315736

Town and Country Housing

28 February 2025


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 response to the resident’s concerns about a section 20 consultation, and management of the block.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property.
  2. Correspondence to the landlord was managed by the resident’s father acting as her representative in this case. For ease of narration this report will refer to “the resident” in discussing any actions by her or her father.
  3. The landlord issued a Section 20 notice of works letter to the resident on 4 October 2022. It invited responses from her within 30 days. She replied to the landlord on 27 October 2022 and asked questions for it to respond to. These were regarding the location, rationale, and scope of the works. She also asked for it to provide a statement of account for the sinking fund over the previous 2 years. She raised a complaint with the landlord on 18 May 2023 stating that it had not replied to her questions.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 June 2023. It apologised for failures with respect to delays in responding to the resident and not providing adequate information. It also explained the changes it had made to its processes.
  5. The resident escalated the complaint on 16 June 2023 stating there were further communication failures.
  6. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 5 July 2023. It provided responses regarding its handling of the section 20 notice and management of the block and stated it had made an offer of compensation of £50 at stage 1.
  7. The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman as she was concerned the landlord had not manage the property as it should have and neglected its duties at the expense of residents. She is seeking a reduction in the annual service charge, and for the landlord to contribute towards the costs of works for each year of delay so the sinking fund is not disadvantaged and compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. In contact with this Service, the resident requested that the landlord reduce the service charge due to poor management. Determining the reasonableness of, and liability for, service charges require a binding decision from a court or other tribunal service such as the First Tier Tribunal Service. The role of the Ombudsman is to consider whether the landlord managed the complaint in line with policy and procedure, and whether she was treated fairly, given all the circumstances of the case.

The Section 20 Consultation

  1. The landlord’s section 20 procedure states that when a cost to the leaseholder for a repair or major work will be more than £250, it would write to each one advising them of its intention to conduct works and why it is necessary. The letter must include a description of the proposed works or contract in general terms, explain why it considers the work necessary, invite written observations within 30 days from the date of the letter and invite nominations of contractors from who it will try and obtain quotations for the proposed works.
  2. The landlord issued a notice of intention to conduct works to the resident on 4 October 2022. The letter stated the notice was for external works. It however said in the scope of works that they were for a full internal redecoration. The letter invited her to make written observations either to a specified email address or postal address within 30 days of the date of the notice.
  3. The resident wrote to the landlord on 27 October 2022 regarding the notice. She queried the contents of the letter and clarifications on the following:
    1. What works it proposed to do, and why this was required given the block was less than 7 years old.
    2. Why redecoration was required when a deep clean of walls, carpets and woodwork would suffice and would cost much less.
    3. In the scope of works, there was no mention of painting of individual flat doors, their frames and stair bannisters.
    4. Why the scope of the works suggested 4 coats of paint to the already painted wood surfaces.
    5. What it meant by its reference to other minor works.
    6. Income and expenditure for the sinking fund for the last 2 years.
  4. The landlord’s section 20 process states after 30 days of issuing the notice of intention it should read any replies it has received. It is clear the resident provided a response to the designated email address it provided. It is not clear therefore why it had not responded to the queries she had raised. This was a failure by it to provide appropriate customer service to the resident.
  5. On 18 May 2023, the landlord’s internal correspondence referred to the email but noted it was unsure if the section 20 was proceeding. It also commented on the outstanding reply required to the resident. That was a missed opportunity to contact her to provide its response or an update regarding the ongoing process. This error caused the resident’s concerns to remain unanswered and further time and trouble in pursuing the matter.
  6. The landlord raised a complaint on the same day. It noted this was after receiving correspondence from the resident regarding another complaint. She had said it had stated to her it was unable to locate any correspondence relating to the decoration of the communal areas. She wanted it to investigate why there was no response or further communication since October 2022 and deal with it as a complaint.
  7. A member of the landlord’s management team emailed the resident on 26 May 2023. They said they were aware of the observations she sent it following the Section 20 letter issued in October 2022. They apologised for not providing a response and explained the original email was moved to a separate folder by a former member of staff and they were not told. They said a response would be issued by 5 June 2023.
  8. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 6 June 2023. Regarding the failure to respond to her October 2022 email, it apologised for its service failure and the impact. It said it would be reviewing the process its Homeownership Team operated for managing their correspondence to ensure communications did not go unanswered. As a result of the complaint, it had taken steps to improve the management of emails into its Homeownership mailbox to ensure none go astray as the resident’s had. There was now a visible means of identifying who would take responsibility for giving a response and knowing when the task has been completed.
  9. The response also referred to a complaint about a subject access request that does not form part of this investigation. The landlord offered £50 in compensation to the resident for the failings identified in its handling of that element of the complaint. It did not however make an offer of compensation to her specifically for its delay in replying to her correspondence regarding the section 20 notice.
  10. The landlord’s response was appropriate in that it fully acknowledged and apologised for its failures. It admitted there had been failures in both its processes and the service it had provided the resident. This included its response to the concerns raised in May 2023. Given how long the response remained outstanding and the failures identified, it would have been appropriate to offer compensation as redress to reflect the time and inconvenience caused.
  11. It is also noted that at the time the landlord issued the stage 1 response, it had not fulfilled its commitment to provide its reply to the resident regarding her Section 20 questions by 5 June 2023. This was a minor delay. However, it would have been good practice to address or acknowledge that in its stage 1 response.
  12. The resident responded to the landlord on 16 June 2023. She expressed disappointment that it had not responded at stage 1 on 5 June 2023 as promised. She requested the escalation of the complaint to stage 2. The resident also contacted the officer who said they would provide the response and informed them they had not done so.
  13. Following that, the landlord issued a response to the email from 26 May 2023 on 16 June 2023. Its response provided some answers to the queries and questions raised. However, it said for some of the queries it needed to refer those to its asset management team to provide a response.
  14. The resident had waited a significant amount of time for the response to be issued, including completing stage 1 of its complaint process. The landlord missed the response date it proposed. It would have been disappointing to her that it had not provided a full response to her queries.
  15. The landlord has not evidenced the steps it took to investigate the resident’s questions prior to issuing its response to her. This means the Ombudsman cannot establish it had taken all steps available to it to provide answers to her questions prior to it issuing the response.
  16. While it may be appropriate to pass questions to another team, the landlord was aware of the queries for a significant period and had stated a reply would be issued by 5 June 2023. In addition, it did not inform the resident when she should expect a response from the other team. It also failed to inform her if it would be monitoring the response to ensure it was completed. This was a further failure by it that would have added to her distress and inconvenience.
  17. The landlord informed the resident on 16 June 2023 that it had seen many changes over the previous few months. That was due to it undergoing a merger. Following the merger and changes to its policies and procedures along with changes to its tendering process, it decided it needed to restart the planned works programme and restart a full consultation process entirely. A new surveyor would re–visit the site, draw up a new scope of works and decide what works they considered necessary. If they did not consider any works necessary, it would postpone any works programmes. However, if the surveyor deemed works necessary, it would undertake a full consultation exercise again.
  18. In her response of 20 June 2023, the resident stated that abandoning the original process and starting again was a waste of resources. In addition, if the works proceeded, residents would be faced with much higher quotes than if the works were done in a timely fashion. She asked for the stage 2 response to consider that.
  19. The landlord issued a letter regarding the consultation update to the resident on 21 June 2023.
  20. The landlord’s stage 2 response of 5 July 2023 addressed the issues as follows:
    1. Concerns about the poor management of the block and compensation: It believed the response provided at stage 1 of the complaint was adequate to address her concerns. The compensation offered was fair and reasonable. The management fee covered all areas of managing the block. That included, preparing service charges, preparing section 20 consultations, managing contracts, managing communications and communal repairs for the block. It did not feel it should offer compensation for that.
    2. Concerns about the delays to the section 20, the insurance costs, possible costs that may be incurred due to delays in undertaking the proposed works and request for compensation: It understood her concerns may result in increased costs to her and other residents of the block. It did not know what the future costs would be. It did not imagine they would be much higher as it was working towards a Long-Term Qualifying Agreement (LTQA) which should lead to reduced costs. It considered it reasonable to delay given the change in circumstances (its merger) and that it would need to follow that process. The LTQA, would give it comparable and possibly reduced costs given the delay. It did not feel it should offer compensation in that area.
    3. As a result of the complaint, it had taken steps to improve the management of emails into its Homeownership mailbox to ensure none went astray. It had introduced a visible means of identifying who took responsibility for giving a response and established completion of tasks.
  21. The landlord’s response at stage 1 offered compensation of £50. Based on the contents of that response, the compensation offered was for its handling of the data access request not considered in this investigation and in offering the compensation it explained the reasons for doing so. There is no evidence it made an offer of compensation to the resident for its handling of her correspondence for the section 20. The landlord was therefore incorrect in its statement regarding compensation.
  22. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to identify further failures had occurred following the stage 1 complaint most noticeably with its response to the email of 26 May 2023. It provided the response later than it committed to and failed to provide answers to all points raised. It also failed to provide a timescale of when the resident should expect a response. There is also no evidence it responded to those points before the stage 2 response was issued.
  23. Overall, the landlord’s handling of this matter was inadequate. It failed to identify the resident had responded to the section 20 consultation. Once it was made aware it committed to a response date that it failed to meet. When the response was issued it was unable to provide answers to all queries or provide the resident with a date she should expect a response. When considering this in its final complaint response it failed to identify the compensation offered was not in relation to the Section 20 complaint or that failures continued beyond the stage 1 response. This is maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a section 20 consultation, and management of the block.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £150 compensation for the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a section 20 consultation, and management of the block.
    3. Provide this service with evidence of compliance with the above orders.