London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202309955)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309955

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

14 March 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for an EWS1 form.
2. Request for it to buy back his property.
3. Reports regarding the level of natural light in his property.
4. Concerns about scaffolding.
5. Reports of outstanding communal repairs.
6. Concerns about a change to its pet policy.
7. Concerns about a new intercom system.
8. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The property is a 2 bedroom flat in a block, which is approximately 18 metres in height and consists of 7 storeys. The resident is a leaseholder and moved into the property in April 2016.
The resident initially purchased the property under the shared ownership scheme, where his initial percentage share was 40%. In October 2019, he purchased the remaining 60% share from the landlord.
Although no specific date was provided, the records show that the resident made a request, in or around February 2021, for the landlord to buy back his property under its voluntary buy back policy. The landlord declined his request.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2021 to ask if it would reconsider buying his flat back. He said that, due to health reasons, he was looking to move to a small house with a garden. He stated that, as his block was undergoing cladding inspections, this had prevented him from selling his property.
On 9 March 2021 the landlord responded and thanked the resident for sharing his family circumstances in more detail. It stated that:
1. His case had been reviewed by its buy back panel and his circumstances did not meet its eligibility criteria.
2. It would only consider buying back a property under exceptional circumstances and if:
  1. It was aware the property was “unmortgageable” to potential third party buyers; and
  2. where the remedial works required more than 12 months to complete and could not reasonably be undertaken whilst the property was occupied.
3. As the criteria were not applicable to residents at the block, it could not accommodate his request.
4. The panel took into account the resident’s medical circumstances and concerns regarding the air quality in his local area but were unable to buy back his home on those grounds alone.
5. It appreciated and understood the personal impact the EWS1 certification was having on its residents and their ability to sell their homes. It had put measures in place to offer support, such as giving leaseholders the option of subletting their home.
The resident responded on the same day to ask if there was a way he could appeal the landlord’s decision. The landlord wrote back on 10 March 2021 to say it could review his request again but, in order to do so, he would have to provide evidence of his family’s health issues.
On 1 April 2021, the resident sent the landlord evidence of a family member’s health condition and diagnosis.
The landlord’s fire safety team sent all residents in the block a letter on 1 April 2021 stating:
1. A common question it got asked is if an EWS1 form would be issued following the surveys.
2. The external wall system would not pass an EWS1 form inspection until the recommended remediation or “permanent alternative mitigation” works were undertaken.
3. It apologised for any upset or inconvenience this may have caused.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to thank him for submitting additional information about his family member’s health condition. It stated that a panel from its asset management directorate had reviewed his buy back request again. It noted the documentation he had sent was addressed to another property in the area. In addition, in his initial request, he had advised that his family member stayed with him for only part of the week due to her care needs. While it sympathised with his situation, it said that, due to his family member not being a full-time occupant or a registered owner of the flat, it could not accommodate his request. It reiterated that it could provide consent for him to sublet his property, which would enable a temporary move until he could sell his flat.
The resident wrote back on 16 April 2021 to say that he had already explained that his family member did not “reside” at the property but that she slept there most days of the week. He asked how he could appeal the landlord’s decision.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord responded and explained that its buy back policy had been updated in the previous 12 months and took account of the external environment and the impact of cladding and EWS1 certificates. However, it stated that it had no legal requirement to buy back properties and there was no right of appeal. It suggested that, if the resident was not satisfied with its response, he should seek independent legal advice or speak with the Ombudsman.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 8 July 2021 to inform him that he had an outstanding service charge balance of £3015.85. The resident replied on the same day to say his experience of the landlord’s service had been “dreadful” and, due to the impact it had had on the household’s wellbeing, he did not feel he should pay the service charge. The landlord wrote back on 9 July 2021 to apologise that he was not happy with its service and asked him for further details.
On 9 July 2021 the resident responded to the landlord stating that his family was having to endure scaffolding for months. This was blocking the natural daylight coming into the property and had made the flat vulnerable to potential break-ins. Furthermore, he was unable to sell his flat on the open market until the cladding was inspected. He raised a number of concerns regarding outstanding communal repairs. The landlord responded on 12 July 2021 to say it had passed his email onto its repairs team to investigate further.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 July 2021 to say it was sorry the scaffolding was causing him a nuisance. It stated that it had sent numerous correspondence to all residents in the block explaining there was extensive water ingress into many properties. It added that its consultants had tried to establish the cause over the previous 6 months and were close to resolving the matter. Work would still “take some time” and that, in order to complete the investigations, it had had to install scaffolding for safety reasons.
It wrote to him again on 20 July 2021 to say that it was unable to give a date as to when the scaffolding would be removed, which was due to the type of repairs being weather dependent. It said it would keep residents updated with timescales. It is unclear from the records whether the landlord sent any further updates.
On 3 November 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord to raise a number of queries. This included requests for it to confirm:
1. When residents were due to receive the EWS1 form.
2. When remediation works were due to take place, along with an anticipated completion date.
3. When investigation works to identify water ingress would be concluded, and the scaffolding taken down. This was because the works had been going on for nearly a year and the scaffolding was having an impact on residents’ natural light, privacy and security.
4. What action it would take to stop residents from walking their dogs around and leaving dog waste. The resident stated that, apart from guide dogs, pets were not allowed in the building. He added that there were dogs, including dangerous breeds, in the block and that some residents with children had raised safety concerns.
5. When it would take action to repair the main entrance door, the door to the car park, a door to the communal lifts and the door entry intercom system.
On 8 November 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s queries and stated:
1. It was unable to provide an EWS1 form until all remediation works were completed and a final inspection had taken place.
2. Remediation works were yet to be scheduled. Its latest update, from 1 April 2021, was the external wall system at the block would not pass an EWS1 inspection until the recommended remediation works were undertaken.
3. The water ingress investigations were ongoing, and the original developer had been completing the most recent inspections. As the existing scaffold was not required at that time, the landlord had requested that it be removed. It would contact the block as soon as it was given a date.
4. It had recently changed its pet policy to bring it in line with other landlords, and pets were now permitted in all properties, subject to the landlord’s approval. It would remind all residents of the importance of having dogs on leads at all times and clearing dog waste.
5. It was obtaining several quotes for the door entry system to be upgraded, which was expected to alleviate many of the issues some residents were experiencing. Furthermore, it had raised works orders for its door entry specialist to repair the doors the resident had mentioned.
The resident responded on 29 November 2021 to say that some residents were unable to drive out of the car park because the gates failed to operate properly. He contacted the landlord again on 6 December 2021 to say that his family were tired of scaffolding being erected for months on end. The resident reiterated the previous concerns he had raised about the scaffolding remaining in situ. He added that, because of the scaffolding, the glass on his balcony got covered in mud and he had to pay to get this cleaned.
On 17 December 2021, the resident chased up his email of 29 November 2021. The landlord responded on 23 December 2021 to say it used a specialist contractor to maintain the gate. The contractor informed it that the gate electrics had been vandalised, which was why the key fobs did not work. It would check the CCTV footage to identify the cause of the damage and update residents accordingly.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 23 December 2021 to say that, with regard to the scaffolding, it was working with the developer to identify the defect and that it had to allow it access to inspect. It stressed that contractors should always leave the site clear and asked the resident how much he had paid to get his balcony cleaned. It also asked if he could provide receipts so it could cover the costs.
The resident raised a formal complaint (Complaint A) with the landlord on 17 March 2022 stating:
1. His life had been put on hold because of having to wait for a EWS1 form to be issued.
2. The landlord refused to buy his flat back from him under exceptional circumstances, despite the fact a member of his household had a terminal illness.
3. The natural light into his living room, dining room and kitchen was “extremely bad” due to the poor layout and size of the windows.
4. His family was tired of scaffolding being up for months on end next to his balcony. This was because it blocked the natural light and posed a security risk.
5. The landlord changed its pet policy without consulting him or any other residents in the block. This had impacted his family’s safety due to “dangerous dogs” that roam the car park and communal garden.
6. The landlord failed to consult with him before it changed the intercom system. The only letter of notice was a letter left outside his door by the contractor.
7. The entrance door to the car park could not be shut securely for almost a year.
The landlord acknowledged Complaint A on the same day and sent a holding reply on 30 March 2022. This stated that it was still investigating the complaint and would send a response before 12 April 2022.
On 13 April 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 response to Complaint A. This stated:
1. In September 2020 it had started the process of inspecting blocks over 18 metres high and had completed the on-site inspection process in September 2021. It was in the process of reviewing the findings against the government’s draft guidance (known as PAS9980) to establish whether any remediation works were required.
2. Due to the amount of remediation projects that were currently underway, it was unlikely it would be possible to begin remediating his block before the end of 2022.
3. It had recently issued a press release, which confirmed it would not be recharging for any interim measures on buildings such as temporary alarm systems or evacuation management services (waking watch).
4. It would only consider buying back a property under exceptional circumstances. The panel had taken into account the medical circumstances he had outlined. This did not meet the voluntary buy back criteria.
5. Regarding the lack of direct light into his property, should the resident wish to make improvements to his home, he was able to do so by submitting a home improvement form.
6. It acknowledged that the numerous inspections it had completed had caused inconvenience by way of the scaffold. In order for contractors to gain safe access to the roof terraces and main roof, it had no option but to install scaffold.
7. With regard to the cleaning of his balcony, it had responded and requested a receipt for the clean so it could reimburse him. However, the resident advised he did not have a receipt for this.
8. It had updated its pet policy in August 2021, in line with government guidance. Although it understood his frustrations, it recognised the importance pets have for owners in terms of their mental and physical wellbeing. If there were any pets that were causing a nuisance, it advised him to report it so that necessary action could be taken.
9. As the total installation cost of the new door entry system was less than £250, it was below the section 20 threshold where it would need to legally consult residents about changes. As the resident had stated that his partner did not have a smart phone, it advised that it would order a tablet device that would enable her to use the intercom system.
10. It acknowledged there had been a long delay in repairing the magnetic lock to the block entrance from the car park. The delay had been caused by a number of factors, including numerous leaks from residents’ water meters. The leaks had since been repaired its contractor would be attending by 22 April 2022 to carry out a full repair.
11. On investigation of the car park gates and after viewing the CCTV footage, it found that some residents had been vandalising the control system. This was something that it was continuing to investigate.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord sent the notification to the resident that he had an outstanding balance of £4820.49 on his service charge account.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 April 2022 to escalate Complaint A. He stated that
1. The landlord had failed to address the majority of his concerns.
2. It had failed for several months to sort issues around the block.
3. He was unhappy with the length of time the scaffolding had been up.
4. The landlord had arranged for a tablet to be installed as part of the new intercom system, without first consulting with him. He would only accept this if it was “hard wired to the mains door system” and did not rely on a Wi-Fi connection to his own router. He added that he would “not pay a penny” of the service charge and wanted to be financially compensated for what the landlord had put his family through.
5. He disagreed with the changes to the landlord’s pet policy and stated that his daughter had almost been attacked by a dog in the communal garden.
6. He was unable to sell his home due to the remedial works required to the cladding before an EWS1 could be issued. Although he understood the remedial works would take more than 12 months to complete, this time period had passed since he first raised the issue.
7. It had failed to take into account his family member’s health condition and would not buy back his home.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request for Complaint A. It stated that it had spoken with its door entry contractor, who advised that the tablet was wireless and would replace the resident’s mobile phone. It confirmed he would require a Wi-Fi connection for it to work. However, as he had mentioned he would not be happy with a wireless tablet, it had cancelled his order.
On 3 October 2022, the resident raised a further stage 1 complaint (Complaint B). He stated that it had taken a year to repair the car park gate and that, as a result, his family had not felt safe using the communal garden. He added that this was not acceptable and he would be “looking to file for damages”.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 October 2022 and sent its stage 1 response to Complaint B on 11 October 2022. It stated:
1. It had been proven that the damage to the gate was caused by a resident’s visitor. This had been captured on CCTV and was being dealt with as a criminal matter.
2. It had received the initial report of the broken gate on 26 November 2021 and this had been repaired.
3. There was further incident on 17 December 2021, where the gate had been tampered with. It decided that, due to the holiday period, it would leave the gate open to provide access for everyone. It confirmed that the gate was made safe in early January 2022.
4. As part of its major repairs project, it distributed new key fobs to residents. It accepted that some residents did not initially receive a fob, which caused a short delay in reactivating the car park gate. However, this had been resolved.
5. The car park gate had been repaired and had been active since mid-September 2022.
6. It offered compensation of £120, which it broke down as follows
  1. £60 for inconvenience caused;
  2. £60 for distress, and time and trouble.
On 18 November 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. He stated that, as a result of the way the landlord had handled the cladding situation, he was in a “very difficult position” to be able to afford a property in the area that accommodated his family’s needs. He was seeking financial compensation from the landlord for what his family had gone through.
The landlord responded on the same day and said it was sorry he was not satisfied with the service it had provided in relation to its cladding inspection programme. It confirmed that the issues he raised would be dealt with as a stage 1 complaint (Complaint C).
It is unclear whether the resident replied to the stage 1 response to Complaint B. However, on 28 November 2022, the landlord contacted the resident to say it was sorry it had not been able to resolve Complaint A and Complaint B. It said it would carry out a full review of both complaints under stage 2 of its process. It said that, once it has completed its investigation, it would write to him by 24 December 2022 with its decision.
On 29 November 2022, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response for Complaint C. It stated that:
1. It understood the resident was unhappy that an EWS1 form was not available for his property and he required this for further funding.
2. It regretted it did not have an EWS1 form for his block.
3. The need for an EWS1 form was in response to updated government building safety guidance. The guidance said that all building owners of multi-occupied buildings must carry out intrusive tests on the external wall system of the building and verify that no combustible materials present.
4. The tests were time-consuming, costly, and because of the sudden increase in demand, suffer from a shortage of qualified people who can carry them out.
5. A new assessment had been introduced called PAS9980, which was “a more realistic inspection” in terms of fire safety. This meant it would have to re-inspect the resident’s building under those guidelines. Its aim was to have the PAS9980 inspections conducted in January 2023, and the reports completed by the end of February 2023.
6. Once the inspection was completed, it would be in a position to confirm if an EWS1 would be issued or if further remedial works were required. Until this had been confirmed, no EWS1 form would be issued.
7. It wanted to do everything it could to offer support. It had amended its subletting policy to allow leaseholders to sublet their properties when they have been unable to sell them.
On 13 December 2022 the landlord sent its stage 2 response to Complaint A. It summarised the resident’s stage 1 complaint and the response. It then stated:
1. It had reviewed the additional evidence the resident provided to appeal its buy back decision. However, the panel decided that the information he provided did not meet the exceptional circumstances criteria.
2. It was satisfied it had considered his stage 1 complaint appropriately and that it had reached a fair outcome.
3. Should he wish to make a claim for the costs of cleaning the mud streaks off his balcony caused by the scaffolding, he needed to send it the receipts.
4. It offered compensation of £160, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £10 for the delay in responding to the resident’s stage 1 complaint;
  2. £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response;
  3. £50 for the resident’s time and effort.
5. In line with its compensation policy, it would offset the compensation payment against his service charge arrears of £6329.75.
On the same say, the landlord also sent the resident its stage 2 response to Complaint B. It summarised the resident’s stage 1 complaint and its response, It then stated that:
1. It understood the resident was unhappy with the way the repairs to the gate had been handled.
2. It also understood he wanted an increase in compensation to at least £10,000 for inconvenience, stress and the impact on his wellbeing.
3. Its maintenance records showed that between November 2021 and September 2022, it had raised 13 work orders for the gates.
4. On 3 occasions, when operatives attended, the gates were working.
5. On 6 occasions the reports showed that the control box for the gates had been “deliberately damaged”.
6. 4 reports showed that there were “genuine faults” with the gate motor, the control board or with fobs not working properly.
7. The gates has been operating correctly since mid-September 2022. However, it had received a further report that the pedestrian gate was broken. It acknowledged that operatives who attended were unable to find a fault.
8. It acknowledged its communication regarding the repairs should have been managed better and apologised for its poor service.
9. It offered the resident a revised offer of compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £60 for inconvenience;
  2. £60 for distress, and the time taken to bring the matter to its attention;
  3. £20 for the delay in providing a stage 2 response.
10. In line with its compensation policy, it would offset the compensation payment against his service charge arrears of £6329.75.
On 21 May 2023, the resident wrote to the Service and stated that the landlord’s actions had impacted his life, family safety, health and wellbeing. He stated that he was unhappy with:
1. Its response to his complaint about its voluntary buy back decision.
2. Its delay in reaching a resolution following a cladding inspection on 3 December 2020.
3. The lack of natural daylight into his property, which had had a “profound negative impact” on his family’s wellbeing.
4. Its response to his complaint about scaffolding that had been installed outside his balcony for several months.
5. The way it had handled repairs to the car park gates.
6. The fact it had changed its pet policy without consulting with him first.
7. The fact it failed to consult with him prior to installing a new intercom system.
The landlord reported that, in April 2023, it had carried out a remediation inspection for cladding on the building. It carried out a fire risk assessment on 6 November 2023, which reported that the landlord had completed a cladding inspection, and remediation had been identified but not yet started.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated to the landlord and the Service that he was seeking financial compensation for “damages incurred” to the health and wellbeing of his household as a result of the landlord’s actions. The Ombudsman does not doubt the impact his situation has had on him and his family. However, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be a matter for a court to consider as a personal injury claim. The Ombudsman is however able to look at whether the landlord correctly followed its policies and procedures, and good practice. We have also considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of any failings by the landlord.

The resident’s request for an EWS1 form

The government’s expectations in relation to cladding and fire safety are only detailed in guidance. This means there is an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chooses to comply with the guidance.
When investigating a complaint relating to the government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding, the Ombudsman will consider the following points:
1. The landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and whether these were fair and reasonable.
2. How it had communicated with shared owners/leaseholders regarding the situation and whether this communication was appropriate.
3. How it responded to the individual circumstances of the leaseholder.
The government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary, the advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings, where the external wall system (EWS) of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM). The advice set out checks, which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe.
In December 2019, the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS), the Building Societies Association (BSA) and UK Finance agreed a new industry-wide valuation process to help people buy and sell homes and re-mortgage in buildings above 18 metres (six storeys) or below 18 metres where there were concerns about the safety of cladding materials. Form EWS1 was introduced to serve as confirmation to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.
There was no statutory or automatic obligation for landlords to carry out an EWS1 assessment or provide copies of EWS1 forms to leaseholders. In the words of the form, the EWS1 form was for the external wall system only. It was not a fire safety certificate.
The government consolidated ‘Advice Note 14’ when it issued ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’ (BSA) in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance stated that “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not wait for further advice or information to act”. Paragraph 1.5 stated that “the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applies to buildings of any height”.
In response to the guidance, some lenders took the view that, if certification could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a zero valuation.
On 8 March 2021, RICS issued new guidance (effective from 5 April 2021) in relation to the EWS1, which clarified the criteria for deciding whether an EWS1 was needed.
The landlord’s website states the following regarding its building safety programme:
1. Its first phase of inspections took place between September 2020 and September 2021, and was focused on buildings that were 18 metres or higher;
2. It began the inspection of more than 2,000 apartment blocks under 18 metres heigh from September 2021;
3. From April 2021, it would be writing to resident in blocks under 18 metres tall with information regarding their inspection type;

It posted 7 updates on its site between 10 February 2021 and 23 January 2023.

The landlord’s correspondence with the resident, in addition to information published on its website, shows that the landlord was taking steps to comply with the government’s guidance in respect of the building. In April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that, due to the amount of remediation projects that were currently underway, it was unlikely it could begin remediating his block before the end of 2022. It also explained in November 2022 that the tests to identify the presence of combustible materials were time-consuming and costly. In addition, it said that, because of the sudden increase in demand, there was a shortage of qualified people to carry out the tests. This demonstrates a degree of transparency and that the landlord was initially trying to manage the resident’s expectations. Given the nature and extent of the works involved, this was a reasonable approach to take.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on dealing with cladding complaints states that landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every 3 months. This applies even where there is little or no change. Landlords should also ensure they respond to specific issues raised by residents and not provide entirely or substantially generic responses.
The Ombudsman recognises that the process of achieving compliance with government guidance is complicated and requires input from experts. Given this and the number of buildings owned by the landlord that require assessment, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken a rational approach to prioritising inspections. However, it was unreasonable that the landlord failed to provide clearer and more timely communication regarding the progress towards issuing an the EWS1 form, or updates on remedial works. There is a record that, on 1 April 2021, the landlord’s fire safety team sent all the residents in the block a letter addressing whether an EWS1 form would be issued following the surveys. It stated that, “the external wall system would not pass an EWS1 form until the recommended remediation…works were undertaken”.
Given the impact the EWS1 form was having on the resident, it would have been reasonable at this stage for the landlord to have provided more comprehensive information. It could have explained its long term planning, provided clearer target timescales and given a timetable of when it would provide regular updates to residents. This would have helped reassure the resident that the landlord was taking positive steps to obtain an EWS1 form. The lack of any clear and detailed information would have added to the resident’s uncertainty and anxiety over when he would be able to sell his property.
There is no evidence the landlord provided regular updates. The evidence shows that the updates which were provided were in response to enquiries or complaints it had received from the resident. There is no indication the landlord held regular meetings or sent newsletters, for example. This would have helped to keep residents informed of progress and provided some ongoing reassurance. The lack of communication would have made the resident’s efforts to sell his home more stressful than it might otherwise have been. The fact the resident often had to write to the landlord for updates meant he had to spend time and trouble asking for information that the landlord should reasonably have been providing, whenever possible.
The records show that the landlord provided generic responses to the resident’s requests about when he was due to receive an EWS1 form. On 8 November 2021, the landlord told him that it was unable to provide an EWS1 form “until all remediation works were completed and a final inspection from an independent contractor had taken place”. This was a repeat of the information it had provided some 7 months earlier, in April 2021. It failed to give any further clarification which, given the time that had elapsed, demonstrated a lack of customer focus or empathy for the resident’s circumstances. It is appreciated that, due to the number of properties it was having to inspect, the landlord may not have had been able to provide specific dates or work schedules. However, it could have given the resident an idea of when remediation works were likely to take place, the nature of those works and an estimated duration of works based on the works to other similar buildings. This would have helped give the resident some idea of when he might be in a position to begin selling his flat.
The evidence shows there were instances when the landlord gave confusing and misleading information. This would have only served to exacerbate the resident’s uncertainty. On 13 April 2022 it told him that, due to the amount of remediation projects that were underway, it was unlikely it would begin remediating his block before the end of 2022. On 29 November 2022, it then told the resident that it had to conduct further inspections in January 2023 and that it would be in a position to confirm at the end of February 2023 whether an EWS1 form would be issued.
The report from the fire risk assessment caried out on 6 November 2023 stated that remediation had been identified but not yet started. It is acknowledged that the landlord had put support in place, which it outlined in its stage 1 response to Complaint C. It is also clear the landlord had expressed empathy in its responses for the resident and others in a similar position. However, the protracted delays, together with poor communication and lack of any meaningful updates would have caused unnecessary additional distress. In addition it they would have caused uncertainty to a household that was facing several challenges, including caring responsibilities for a terminally ill family member. That the landlord failed to communicate effectively or demonstrate it had provided regular and detailed updates about the EWS1 form amounted to maladministration.

The resident’s request for it to buy back his property

The landlord states on its website it will only consider buying back a property if it needed major remedial works that make it non-mortgageable to potential third party buyers, In addition, the works would need to take more than 12 months to complete and they could be completed while the residents were living there. This was in line with its Voluntary Buy back Policy.
The policy was amended in March 2021 to consider cases that did not meet the policy criteria but where there are considered to be exceptional circumstances. Although the exceptional circumstances are not specified, the landlord gives 2 general examples in its Voluntary Buy back (pre-IPG Approval) Procedure. These are financial hardship and vulnerability. It states that the Voluntary Buy Back Panel will consider the specific exceptional circumstances relevant to the case in question and may request evidence to support these. The examples of exceptional circumstances given in the policy are general and unspecific, which gives the landlord room to exercise its discretion.
It is important to state that there is no legal obligation for the landlord to buy back the resident’s property and that any buy back is agreed at the landlord’s discretion. The landlord’s decision whether to buy back a property should however be made in accordance with its buy back policy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on cladding complaints states that, while it is not the Ombudsman’s expectation that landlords automatically offer options to buy back properties “we do expect landlords to have considered whether this is an option they can accommodate in exceptional circumstances. Landlords should have considered what those exceptional circumstances may be, adopting a holistic and empathetic approach to the range of circumstances that may impact residents.”
It is not the role of the Ombudsman to decide whether or not the landlord had made the correct decision. Neither is the Ombudsman able to overturn a decision or order that the landlord buys back the resident’s property. However, we are able to consider whether a decision has been arrived at fairly and reasonably. If we find that a decision had not been made fairly or that a landlord had fettered its discretion, we are able to ask the landlord to review its decision based on evidence it may not have fully considered.
The evidence shows that the landlord declined the resident’s initial buy back request on the basis that his building did not meet the standard eligibility criteria. This was reasonable and demonstrates that the landlord considered the resident’s application in line with its policy. Despite the fact the policy does not include a right to appeal a buy back decision, the landlord appropriately exercised its discretion when it agreed to review the resident’s application against the exceptional circumstances ‘criteria’. It also exercised its discretion fairly in considering evidence of the relevant family member’s vulnerabilities. As such, while it is acknowledged that the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s decision, there is nothing to suggest that it failed to exercise its discretion fairly in this case.
However, the landlord could reasonably have done more to explain how its decision had been reached. While there was no obligation to do so, the landlord could reasonably have set out the factors that were taken into consideration in reaching its decision. Providing such an explanation would have provided the resident with reassurance that his individual circumstances were taken into account; and may have helped him to understand how the decision had been made. That the landlord did not provide such an explanation was a shortcoming in its handling of the matter.
It is noted that the Ombudsman’s determination of case reference 202120759 ordered that the landlord must carry out a review of its buy back procedure. The landlord responded to the Service on 3 October 2023 to say that following a review, it had approved and updated its buy back policy as below:
1. The specific changes were:
  1. The landlord had introduced an application form requesting information on any exceptional circumstances that the applicant would like it to consider.
  2. It had introduced a template for staff to complete when responding to applicants who had been unsuccessful in their applications. The form will set out steps to take if they disagree with the decision.

The resident’s reports regarding the level of natural light in his property

The Service understands the impact limited natural light can have on a resident’s enjoyment of their home. However, when buying a property, the principal of caveat emptor, or ‘buyer beware’ applies. This means the onus is on the buyer to make reasonable queries about a property before buying it – either directly of the seller, or via their solicitor. A potential buyer would be expected to assess whether or not a property was appropriate for their needs before buying.
Under the terms of the resident’s lease, he is responsible for maintaining and repairing “the premises”, which includes the inside and outside of the windows. This means that the resident would be responsible for commissioning any improvement works to his own premises. In its stage 1 response Complaint A, the landlord explained that, under the terms of his lease, the resident could submit a home improvement form, which it would review reviewed alongside consultation with his lease agreement. This was reasonable advice. It remains for the resident to decide whether this is something he wishes to pursue.

The resident’s concerns about scaffolding

The Service understands the distress and frustration caused to the resident as a result of having to live with scaffolding outside his property for longs period of time. The landlord had explained that scaffolding had been erected in order to investigate “extensive water ingress into many properties” and that it had to be installed for safety reasons.
In line with its obligations as the freeholder of the building, it was reasonable for the landlord to take all necessary steps to investigate water ingress into some of the properties in the building. The investigative and subsequent repair works included erecting scaffolding. In addition, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer to compensate the resident for the cost of cleaning mud from his balcony, which had originated from the scaffolding. It was also appropriate for it to ask the resident for receipts in order that it could process the reimbursements.
However, the evidence does not show that the landlord provided regular updates to residents who were impacted by the scaffolding. The records indicate that the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord or raise concerns in order to get any up to date information on when the scaffolding would likely be removed. Given the impact this was having on him, and the fact he had written to the landlord about it on several occasions, it would have been reasonable for it to have provided regular updates.
The evidence shows here was a lack of clarity about when the scaffolding would be removed. On 19 July 2021 it told him that works would “still take some time”. It then wrote to him the following day to say that it was unable to give a date as to when the scaffolding would be removed. However, on 8 November 2021, it told him that it had requested for the scaffolding to be removed as it was “not required at that time”. It told the resident it would contact the block as soon as it was given a date. There is no evidence it had taken any further action in this regard. In addition, the records indicate the scaffolding was still present at the end of December 2022, over a month and a half after it said it would be removed.
It would have been reasonable in the circumstances for the landlord to have contacted the resident to explain why it had not taken the scaffolding down. Instead, it was left for the resident to raise concerns in order to get further updates. This would have added to his frustration and uncertainty over how long he would have to live with scaffolding outside his property. That the landlord failed to communicate appropriately with the resident about the ongoing works and presence of scaffolding was a service failure.
The resident told the landlord on numerous occasions that the scaffolding was blocking the natural light into his property and that it was causing security concerns. There is no evidence the landlord had properly addressed those concerns. It could have discussed with the resident whether there were any steps it could have taken to ensure the property was more secure while the scaffolding was up. It could have also given advice on how the resident could improve security, or how he could mitigate any impact with regard to light. The landlord may not have been able to fully resolve the resident’s concerns. However, a more customer focused approach would have at least reassured the resident it was making efforts to address the impact the scaffolding was having on the resident and his family.

Reports of outstanding communal repairs

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for maintaining common entrance ways, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and other communal areas, including estate grounds. It also states that for routine day to day repairs, it will aim to complete the repair at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. For emergency works, where there is an immediate danger to the occupant or members of the public, it will attend within 24 hours to ‘make safe’. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 says that a landlord should repair a housing defect “within a reasonable amount of time”. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord confirmed in its complaint response that it had received 13 reports between November 2021 and September 2022 about the car park gate. It stated that it had found faults on 4 occasions. The other instances were either as a result to vandalism, or the gate was working when the contractor arrived. The landlord responded reasonably when it informed the resident it had investigated the cause of the vandalism, checked CCTV footage and reported this as a criminal matter.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that it had attended to all reports of broken car park gates between May 2021 to September 2022 within between 24 hours and 13 days. Within the same period, the evidence shows that the landlord attended to reports of other faulty communal doors between 24 hours and 11 working days. The records also indicate that the faults were caused by various issues than the same recurring fault. The records therefore show that the landlord had responded to the resident’s reports in a timely manner.
The landlord has acknowledged that its communication with regard to the reported faults could have been better and offered £120 compensation in its stage 2 response to Complaint B. This was for inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Concerns about a change to its pet policy

On 28 January 2021, the government announced a new Model Tenancy Agreement, which meant landlords would no longer be able to issue blanket bans on pets by default. Instead, consent for pets would be the default position, and landlords would have to object in writing within 28 days of a written pet request from a resident, and provide a good reason.
The landlord told the Service that 75% of the residents it had surveyed prior to changing its policy “were either fully supportive, supportive, or had no fixed view on allowing residents to own a dog”. It also stated that it had conducted an equalities impact assessment, which concluded no negative impacts on any protected characteristic group. It did however highlight the potential positive impacts, particularly for older residents and those with a disability or health condition. While the landlord’s actions were reasonable, it is unclear why this explanation was not provided to the resident during the course of the complaints procedure. Had the landlord explained the steps it had taken, it may have provided the resident with some reassurance. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord also told the Service that it always tried to ensure that it consulted with residents prior to making any changes that may affect them. It said it engaged in a variety of ways, depending on the nature of the proposed change. It engaged its residents through its online focus group community, which involved residents across its tenure types who had signed up to give feedback. It added that it had provided them information on the proposed change to its pet policy and asked for their views via a survey.
The landlord acted reasonably by seeking views from its residents prior to issuing its amended policy. However, it is unclear whether the resident had been made aware of the online focus group community or that the landlord had been conducting a survey. This would have alerted him to the fact the landlord was proposing to change its pet policy and would have given the resident an opportunity to provide his own feedback. As above, it would have also been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with this explanation when it responded to his complaint.
Although the landlord is under no obligation to consult with residents or seek their approval before changing a policy, it would have been good practice for it to have notified all residents of the change prior to the policy being implemented. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to provide some reassurance of what action it could take in the event residents’ pets were causing a nuisance. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation that it writes to all residents to let them know whenever it is proposing to change a policy that is likely to affect them directly. It should also give them details on how they can provide feedback on the proposals.

Concerns about a new intercom system

The landlord’s repairs policy states that, where a communal repair or necessary improvement work is expected to cost more than £250 per home, it will ensure that consultation is carried out in line with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. There is internal correspondence that confirms that the landlord’s contractors wrote to residents directly to inform them of the works and arrange access to install. It is unclear whether the landlord provided any information about the new system prior to this.
The landlord was under no obligation to consult with residents before installing a new door entry system. However, there is no evidence to demonstrate that it had properly discussed the new system with the resident. It would have been good practice for it to have spoken to the resident prior to installation, and given a clear explanation of how the intercom worked and that it required a Wi-Fi connection. This would have given him an opportunity to ask any questions about the new system and voice any concerns he may have had about it. It was only on 25 April 2022, after the resident had raised a complaint, that the landlord provided information on how the new door entry system operated. That the landlord failed to adequately communicate the benefits and technicalities of the new door entry system to the resident was failing.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If it cannot meet this timescale, it will explain why and respond within a further 10 working days. The timescale for stage 2 complaints, which the landlord refers to as a “review of the complaint” is 20 working days; and a further 10 working days if it is unable to meet that target.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 30 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will pay a fixed award of £10 compensation for the failure to respond to a query within 10 working days, where it is identified as part of a complaint investigation. It also states that it will award discretionary compensation when its mistake or failure causes a resident distress and inconvenience, and for time and trouble. The policy does not provide specific amounts for this.
The landlord took 19 working days to issue the stage 1 response to Complaint A. It acted reasonably when it wrote to the resident, 9 working days after it received the complaint, to give an update and to inform him it would respond by 12 April 2022. Although it issued its response on 13 April 2022, it had responded within the timescale as permitted in its policy and the Code. It also offered the resident £10 compensation for the delay, which was in line with its compensation policy.
However, it took the landlord 8 months to issue the stage 2 response to Complaint A, which was a significant delay. There is no evidence the landlord had provided any updates, explained why there was a delay or made any attempt to agree any extensions with the resident. Although the landlord did not apologise for the time it took to respond, it offered £100 compensation in recognition of the delay.
It is unclear from the records when the resident requested the escalation of Complaint B. However, it is noted that the landlord agreed to escalate the complaint on 28 November 2022. The landlord offered £20 compensation for the delay in issuing the stage 2 response to Complaint B, which suggests the resident would have escalated his complaint sometime before the landlord acknowledged it. The landlord has not disputed that there was a delay.
Although the landlord offered a total of £130 compensation for its poor complaint handling of Complaints A and B, this does not go far enough to put things right. That the landlord failed to communicate with the resident for around 8 months while investigating Complaint A at stage 2 of its process was maladministration. The landlord will be ordered to provide further redress in sufficient recognition of the length of delay, its lack of communication, and the unnecessary distress and inconvenience caused as a result.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for an EWS1 form.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to buy back his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports regarding the level of natural light in his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about scaffolding.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding communal repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a change to its pet policy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a new intercom system.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication was poor and it failed to regularly update the resident regarding its progress towards obtaining an EWS1 form. It failed to provide any long term plan regarding remediation works, which would have reassured the resident of the steps it was taking to resolve the barriers to obtaining an EWS1 form.
Although the landlord agreed to review the resident’s buy back request, it could have explained its decision in more detail. This would have helped the resident better understand the reason why the landlord had not approved his request.
The landlord responded reasonably when it directed the resident to the terms of his lease and advised him about how he can apply to make improvements to his property.
The landlord failed to communicate adequately with the resident with regard to its plans around how long it expected scaffolding to remain outside his property.
The landlord responded to reports of repairs to communal doors and parking gate in a timely manner. It offered compensation in recognition that its communication could have been better.
Although it was not under any obligation to consult with the resident about the change in its pet policy, it would have been good practice for it to write to all residents about a change in policy that directly affected them.
The landlord failed to communicate properly to the resident before installing the new door entry system. It should have given the resident details of the new system, along with an opportunity for him to ask any questions about how it worked.
The landlord took around 8 months to respond to a stage 2 complaint, and failed to agree any extensions, or to communicate with the resident to explain or apologise for the delay.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £900, calculated as follows:
  1. £300 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication around the EWS1 form;
  2. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication about the scaffolding outside the resident’s property;
  3. £120 it had offered in its complaint response for its poor communication regarding communal repairs;
  4. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication about the new door entry system;
  5. £230 for its poor complaint handling. This replaces the landlord’s original offer of £130;
  6. £50 that it had offered in its response to Complaint A for time and effort.
2. It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by the Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears, where they exist.
3. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report.
4. If there is still scaffolding outside his property, provide the resident with an update on the latest situation with regard to how long it expects it to remain in situ. In addition, to discuss his safety concerns with him and whether there is any support it could provide to help make his property feel safer while the scaffolding is up.
5. Contact the resident to discuss the new door entry system with him, explain the benefits of the system and provide any necessary technical information to help him make an informed decision on whether he would like it to re-order him a tablet.
6. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to the Service within the timescales set out above.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide the resident and the Service with an action plan for communicating the ongoing issues obtaining an EWS1 form. This should include specific timescales for when the landlord will provide updates, how it will update residents and details and of any meetings it intends to hold with residents:
Within 12 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to review its training to complaint handling staff, with emphasis on updating residents if there are delays in responding to complaints. The training should also emphasise the importance of being fully conversant with and following the landlord’s own complaints process. The landlord to confirm it has carried out the review and provide details of any changes it has made in its training as a result.

Recommendations

Taking into account the changes it made to its buy back policy, the landlord should review its template to ensure that a clear explanation about how its decision was reached is provided in the future. The landlord should also provide the resident with a clearer explanation about how its decision was made in his case.
The landlord to review its process for policy changes/updates and new policy implementation. It should consider when it may be necessary to notify residents of changes. As part of the review, the landlord should then consider deciding on a formal process for notifying residents and receiving feedback, so it is being consistent and fair. The landlord to report back the outcome of its review to the Ombudsman within 8 weeks of receiving this determination.