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

Catalyst Housing Limited (202001741)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001741

Catalyst Housing Limited

20 May 2021


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 reports of:
    1. Cracks to the bedroom window pane;
    2. Cracks to a shared wall between the property and the communal corridor;
    3. Water ingress into the property and;
    4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a block.
  2. The freehold of the building is held by a private limited company; a property developer (the developer).
  3. The landlord and two private management companies hold the headlease to the property and the resident and his partner hold the underlease. The underlease is dated 2015 however this was purchased by the resident in 2018. The building was built around 2012.
  4. The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman on 7 May 2021 that the managing agents are retained by the two private management companies (‘management company one’ and ‘management company two’).
  5. In his email to the landlord dated 8 May 2020, the resident said the cracking to the windowpane had been ongoing for a year. In his subsequent formal complaint of 13 May 2020, he said he first raised the problem concerning cracks to a shared wall between his flat and the communal corridor (the shared wall) with the landlord when he first moved into the property.
  6. The Housing Ombudsman’s (the Ombudsman) approved Scheme includes timescales within which a resident is expected to bring a matter to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint which is usually within six months of the matter arising. The Ombudsman has been provided with evidence of the resident reporting the cracks to the windowpane to the landlord on 11 October 2019 however there is no evidence of the resident reporting cracks to the shared wall prior to 13 May 2020.
  7. Therefore, this investigation is limited to considering the landlord’s response to reports of cracks to the windowpane from 11 October 2019 which is just over six months prior to when the resident complained to the landlord about this on 8 May 2020.  However, as there is no evidence of the resident reporting cracks to the shared wall prior to 13 May 2020, this investigation will only consider this complaint from this date.

Summary of Events

  1. The landlord’s call records show that the resident called the landlord on 11 October 2019 advising that the glass in his window had cracked about three months ago. The landlord’s call notes indicate the landlord advised the resident he was responsible for repairing the windowpanes.
  2. The landlord emailed the resident on 7 May 2020 advising its legal team had been looking into his query regarding responsibility for the repair to the window. The landlord referenced clause 3.4.1 of the underlease which stated that the leaseholder will observe all of the Lessee’s covenants in the head lease. It referred to Schedule 1, Clause 23.1 of the headlease which stated it was the tenant’s obligation to keep the glass in the property repaired. It said this was passed on to its tenant by virtue of the clause above, therefore, the window is the responsibility of the resident. The landlord advised if the damage was caused by an ‘insured risk’ then the window would not be his responsibility, if the insurance company are refusing to assist then unfortunately the repair would be down to him.
  3. On 8 May 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating he believed the internal glazing cracked due to heat and that they should not have been installed on a sun facing wall if they cannot withstand heat. He said that other residents have experienced the same and either the landlord or the freeholder have replaced the windows. He asked why his situation was any different. He said this had been ongoing for a year.
  4. The resident also complained about water ingress from the outside coming into his property through the external wall where the steel joints supported the balcony of an upstairs flat. He said he first sent the landlord an email about this issue in February 2020 and that he was told someone would attend on 25 March 2020 to look at this but that the landlord subsequently cancelled this appointment. He said it happened every time it rained and had caused damage to his external property wall. He said he had to lay towels and buckets down in the area. The resident advised he was waiting for this problem to be dealt with. In addition, he said there was cracking and movement on the shared wall. The resident sent a further email to the landlord regarding these matters on 11 May 2020.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord a formal complaint on 13 May 2020 stating he was dissatisfied with the way it was handling his complaints. Regarding the defective window, he said his insurers had said it was a landlord issue and he reiterated that the same issue had happened with windows throughout the building and these had been replaced. The resident reiterated his complaint about water ingress affecting the external wall of the property and also about the cracks to the shared wall which he said he first raised when he moved into the property.
  6. On 14 May 2020, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and advised a response would be provided by 27 May 2020.
  7. The landlord’s internal emails show that on 26 May 2020, it arranged for its specialist contractor to attend the property to check the window frames “and advise on remedial works”.
  8. The landlord’s internal email from its specialist contractor dated 4 June 2020 reported that the window frames were in good working order and that the issue appeared to be with defective glass within the frames. The contractor advised that the window maker had altered its warranty conditions to try and negate any responsibility. They also noted that without removing the glass it was impossible to establish whether it is a glass defect or fitting issue. They stated the same had occurred with ten other properties within the building that had been rectified. He advised that a possible cause of the defect is due to temperature as the window is south facing.
  9. On 16 June 2020, the landlord emailed the resident advising that the issue with the window was his responsibility. It confirmed that the defect liability period had ended and warranty from the original property developer would not be applicable in this case. However, it advised that if it was shown, from taking the window apart, that the cracking was due to an inherent defect, it would look at this issue again.
  10. In his response sent on 16 June 2020, the resident disputed liability for the window and said that under the lease responsibility lies with the landlord. He asked the landlord why it sent a contractor to quote for the work if this is its position. The resident also advised he had raised other issues which had not been addressed.  
  11. In its email to the resident dated 17 June 2020, the landlord acknowledged the possibility that the window broke due to a latent defect but stated that it was also possible that this window broke by other means, so it would need to be proven that there was a latent defect as the property came out of its defects period in 2014.  It also confirmed that the crack to the shared wall was a communal repair so will see if this can be addressed with more immediacy.
  12. The landlord has supplied evidence of its email communications between a manager from its Aftercare team and the developer regarding the defective window and water ingress. The developer said it had received contact from the resident about these issues. In an email dated 17 June 2020, the developer advised the landlord that it had visited the property to investigate the leak coming from the balcony of a flat above the property and the broken glass in the bedroom window. It said it would arrange with the resident to replace the glass. It also said it needed access to the flat above the property to undertake required works to the balcony window which was the cause of the leak into the property and asked the landlord to arrange this. The landlord asked the developer about when it needed access and they replied that they would let the landlord know about this.
  13. On 22 June 2020, in a further email to the resident, the landlord advised that its Repairs team had confirmed it does not undertake repairs inside leasehold properties unless raised within the defects period which had now passed. It said however that it could address inherent defects caused by original work in the property, but this would have to be evidenced before it would attend to repair it. The landlord reiterated that the crack in the shared wall could be addressed as a communal repair and advised this had been added to its list of repairs to be carried out. It stated it would monitor this repair but said to let it know if there are any issues with this repair and it would help resolve it.
  14. On 22 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord advising he had attempted to call the landlord without success and also said he had not had any of his calls returned.
  15. On 25 June 2020, the landlord reiterated in an email that it is not responsible for the repair to the windowpane. It said both its Aftercare and Repair teams had confirmed this position. It said however it would look into the issue with the shared wall. The landlord advised that if the resident was unhappy with the response, he could contact the Ombudsman who will do their own independent investigation.
  16. On 25 June 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking:
    1. Why it had sent a locksmith to assess the broken window and water ingress in the first instance and why another contractor had since attended (without notice) if its final position was it did not intend to repair the windowpane.
    2. Why it had taken approximately one month to respond to his complaint rather than by 27 May 2020 as advised and why had it refused to take any of his phone calls.
    3. Why it had ignored other matters he had raised.
  17. On 3 and 13 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord chasing it for a response to his 25 June 2020 email.
  18. On 14 August 2020, the landlord responded reiterating if he wished to escalate this matter further, the resident should contact the Ombudsman and provided contact details.
  19. On 14 August 2020, the resident emailed advising that he wanted an answer to his questions and reasoning behind its actions. He said he had been told there would be a full investigation into his complaints. 
  20. On 20 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord asking for his complaint to be escalated to stage three of its complaints process for his complaint to be reviewed by a complaint panel. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication and advised the complaints team will provide a response by 4 September 2020.
  21. The landlord’s email communications with the developer show that on 20 August 2020, the developer advised that landlord that they would attend the property on 24 August 2020 to replace the windowpane and asked it to arrange access with the owners of the flat above the property to enable them to complete the work on their balcony to stop the water ingress into the property. The landlord confirmed on 21 August 2020 that the owners would be happy to grant access. 
  22. On 24 August 2020, the defective glass windowpane was replaced by the developer on the basis that the damage was as a result of a latent defect. The developer advised the landlord on 24 August 2020 that access to a different flat above the property, was needed to complete the works to resolve the water ingress into the property. The developer asked the landlord to arrange access to the relevant flat for 7 September 2020.
  23. On 4 September 2020, the landlord emailed the resident providing a response to his 25 June 2020 complaint stating:
    1. It had sent its specialist contractor to attend this property on 4 June 2020 to inspect the reported damage. It said they confirmed the window frames that it is responsible for, were in good working condition and that the issue was with the defective glass within the frame. The landlord stated it understood this issue was now being rectified by the developer.
    2. In relation to the cracks to the shared wall, it advised that its surveyor would like to attend to inspect the reported cracks and that they would be calling him today to arrange a suitable appointment for next week.
  24. The landlord’s 4 September 2020 email was also sent as a letter addressed to the resident dated 9 September 2020.
  25. On 22 September 2020, the landlord’s surveyor visited the property to examine the cracking to the shared wall.
  26. On 12 October 2020, the developer contacted the landlord advising the resident had reported that the leak into the property had not been resolved by the work carried out on 7 September 2020. They asked it to arrange further access to the relevant flat above the property for 21 October 2020. The developer completed the necessary repairs on this date, resolving the water ingress issue.
  27. On 27 October 2020, the landlord issued its final response to the resident stating:
    1. In relation to the repairs involving water ingress, as this was coming in from the external wall, this issue will need to be investigated by the managing agents for the building who are responsible for all communal repairs including passenger lifts, door entry, intercoms, aerials and roofs.
    2. In relation to cracks to the shared wall, as this involves a shared wall with the communal corridor, this issue will need to be investigated by the managing agents for the building who are responsible for all communal repairs.
    3. In regard to damage caused to possessions as a result of the water ingress, the landlord informed the resident that it was not responsible for personal items in the resident’s home as these fall under his contents insurance
  28. In its 27 October 2020 final response, the landlord provided the managing agents’ contact details.  It also explained this constituted its final response on this matter. It reiterated that the resident had the right to take his complaint to the Ombudsman.
  29. In his communication to the Ombudsman on 21 January 2021, the resident advised he was unhappy with the landlord’s response to his reports of water ingress and cracks in the communal area and window. He said whether or not the landlord was responsible for the defective windows, he spent significant time contacting the original developer in order to get the window defect sorted.
  30. In regard to the water ingress, he said he has experienced significant water ingress since February 2020 but the landlord ignored his complaint about this and subsequently told him it was not its responsibility. He confirmed the issue was resolved by the developer on 21 October 2020 but stated that the landlord is accountable for the damage that occurred to his sofa and flooring due to water ingress over eleven months and requested compensation for these items.
  31. The resident said there is still cracking to the shared wall and that the managing agents of the building told him it was the landlord’s responsibility. He requested clarification on who is responsible for this.
  32. The resident said he was also dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint handling; there were “huge” delays which made the situation worse and it refused to provide a stage three hearing as it told him it had changed to two stage complaints process.

Policies, Procedures and latent defects

  1. The headlease at clause 2.1, part 3 of Schedule 4 states that management company one is responsible for keeping the main block structures properly repaired, supported reconstructed maintained and cleansed. Further, clause 2.2 states that management company one is responsible for the cleaning, lighting, decoration and repair and maintenance and renewal of the common parts of the block.
  2. The headlease at clause 2.1, part 2 of Schedule 4 states that management company one is responsible for keeping the basement main structures properly repaired, supported reconstructed maintained and cleansed. Further, clause 2.2 states that management company 1 is responsible for the cleaning, lighting, decoration and repair and maintenance and renewal of the common parts of the basement.
  3. The headlease at Clause 23.1, Schedule 1 states it is the tenant’s obligation to keep the glass in the property repaired. Clause 3.4.1 of the underlease states that: “the Leaseholder must observe the covenants set out in the Superior Lease and the Car Park lease in relation to the Promised as if the same were set out at length and will observe and perform all covenants on the part the lessee contained or referred to in the Superior Lease and the Car Park Lease and subject to which this demise is made the leaseholder will observe all of the Lessee’s covenants in the head lease”.
  4. Clause 2.2 of the landlord’s Repairs policy makes clear that the landlord is not responsible for building contents insurance.
  5. Under clause 2.3 of its Repairs policy, leaseholders are responsible for all repairs within their property unless it is needed due to a leak or other damage caused by it.
  6. The landlord’s Repair policy does not include information regarding latent defects however, usually there is a two-year builder warranty period with new buildings to cover defects that are not general wear and tear or maintenance issues. Defects that come to light after the two year ‘defect period’ are known as ‘latent defects’ and are generally covered by building insurance/warranties which offer cover for the next eight years of the building.
  7. The landlord’s complaint procedure in place at the time of the complaint was a three-stage procedure. This stated the landlord would provide a stage one response within 10 working days of a complaint being made. It also stated that at stage two, the landlord would conduct a full and independent review before providing their response within ten working days of the date of the customer requesting their complaint be escalated. Furthermore, it provided for an independent review at stage three if the resident was dissatisfied with the complaint review at stage two. It stated this would be carried out by a Director or more senior officer or by a two-person review panel.

Assessment and findings

Cracks to the windowpane.

  1. The underlease makes clear that the leaseholders are responsible for all repairs within their property, including glass windowpanes (as conveyed upon them in accordance with the headlease). The landlord’s Repair policy echoes this. It is clear from the evidence of the parties’ communications from 7 May 2020 onwards that the landlord consistently advised the resident that he was responsible for repairing the windows. The landlord’s records show it gave the same advice to the resident when he first raised this issue in October 2019. This advice was in line with the resident’s responsibilities under the head and under leases and as stated in the landlord’s Repairs policy. However, on 16 June 2020, the landlord acknowledged the cracks to the windowpane could be due to an inherent defect. This possibility was identified by its specialist contractor who attended the property on 4 June 2020 to examine the window.
  2. As the building was less than 10 years old, responsibility for addressing a defect identified as a latent defect would lie with the original developer. It is acknowledged that the resident’s defective windowpane was subsequently replaced by the developer on 24 August 2020 and the landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that they were replaced on the basis the damage was caused by a latent defect.  This was appropriate in the circumstance.
  3. However, the resident is dissatisfied with having to spend significant time raising this matter with the developer which he said was necessary in order to get the issue addressed. It is noted that on advising the resident on 16 June 2020 that the defective windows may be due to a latent defect, the landlord told the resident that this would have to be evidenced first before it would consider repairing/replacing the windowpane. It did not advise the resident of any next steps. Furthermore, it is clear that in subsequent responses to the resident dated 17, 22 and 25 June 2020, the landlord reiterated that the windowpanes were his responsibility unless proven that the damage was caused by a latent defect. This was despite the developer on 17 June 2020 having advised the landlord that it would replace the window glass after visiting the property and inspecting the window. It is unclear why the landlord did not relay this information to the resident; it may have been due to miscommunication between the landlord’s different teams. However, there was a failure by the landlord to communicate the actual position to the resident on several occasions in June and August 2020, prior to the developer completing the repair to the windowpane on 24 August 2020. It is understandable if this caused confusion to the resident.  The landlord’s failure to inform the resident that the developer had agreed to replace the pane shows poor communication on the part of the landlord and constitutes service failure. The landlord did not acknowledge, in its complaint responses, these shortfalls in the  service provided to the resident when responding to reports of cracks to the windowpane.

Cracks to a shared wall between the property and the communal corridor

  1. As cracks to the shared wall concerns the structure/common parts of the building, in accordance with the headlease, any responsibility for repairing such cracks lies with management company one. However, the landlord has confirmed to the Ombudsman that the managing agents for the building are retained by management company one, therefore on balance it is accepted that responsibility for this issue concerning the cracks to the shared wall falls to the managing agents.
  2. The resident raised this with the landlord in his formal complaint dated 13 May 2020. In its response dated 17 June 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the cracks to the shared wall involved a communal repair and agreed to investigate this. It reiterated this position in its 22 and 25 June 2020 responses. After the resident chased the landlord for updates on 3 and 13 August 2020, the landlord advised in its 4 September 2020 response that its surveyor would be calling the resident to arrange to visit to inspect the cracks. This visit happened on 24 September 2020, however, in its final response of 27 October 2020, the landlord told the resident that as the cracks are visible in the communal hallway, the managing agents for the building were responsible for investigating this matter. Whilst this represents a change in the advice the landlord had previously provided to the resident since 17 June 2020 suggesting it was responsible for the repair, the information in its 27 October 2020 response was accurate as it is in line with the headlease which holds management company one responsible for structural repairs to the building. Furthermore, it is accepted that the managing agents carry out such repairs on their behalf.
  3. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have explained to the resident that the managing agents were responsible for investigating the cracks to the shared wall much earlier in the complaints process than it did. The landlord’s failure to be clear about the relevant repair obligations meant the resident had to spend an unreasonable amount of time re-raising the matter with the landlord and managing agent, prolonging the length of time taken to establish who is responsible for the repairs. This has delayed any outstanding repair that may be deemed necessary to resolve the cracking to the shared wall.
  4. Therefore, poor communication by the landlord when dealing with this issue reported by the resident over more than five months, constitute evidence of service failure by the landlord. Again, this was not recognised by the landlord in its complaint responses.

Water ingress into the property

  1. Based on the resident’s reports of water ingress- described as water coming in  through gaps in the exterior wall where the steel joints for the above balcony are coming into the building, it is clear this issue relates to  the structure of the building. Therefore, similarly this indicates that the managing agents were responsible for investigating and repairing this issue, unless it was deemed to be due to a latent defect. In either case, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have informed the resident who was responsible for investigating and repairing the leak when initially raised with it. 
  2. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of the resident’s communications about this to the landlord prior to 8 May 2020, however, it is accepted that the resident had raised this issue with the landlord up to three months earlier than 8 May 2020. It is clear that the resident reported the problem again to the landlord on 11 and 13 May and on 16 June 2020. However, there is no evidence of the landlord addressing this issue either in its stage one response dated 16 June 2020, in its 17 June 2020 response, or when the resident asked the landlord on 25 June 2020, why it had not responded to all of the issues he had raised.
  3. The landlord did subsequently acknowledge the water ingress issue in its 4 September 2020 response to the resident and then advised in its 27 October 2020 response that the managing agents for the property building were responsible for addressing the water ingress. However, it is evident that by this time the developer had already resolved the water ingress issue; it is also clear that the developer had agreed in June 2020 to repair the issue causing the water ingress. It appears this was as result of the resident directly pursuing the developer to fix the issue.  The landlord’s Aftercare manager had arranged access to the relevant flat to enable the developer to complete work to the balcony of this flat to address the water ingress at the property. This work was completed on 21 October 2020. It is unclear from the available evidence why the developer rather than the managing agent completed this repair, but this may have been due to the cause being deemed a latent defect.
  4. Nonetheless, it is clear that the landlord delayed in responding to this issue until 4 September 2020; failed to relay to the resident that the developer had agreed in June 2020 to repair the issue and; failed to acknowledge in its final response that the issue had been addressed. This is evidence of poor communication on the part of the landlord when responding to the resident’s report of water ingress. The amounts to evidence of service failure by the landlord. There was no acknowledgement by the landlord of these shortcomings in its service provided in its complaint responses.

Complaint handling.

  1. The resident is unhappy with the landlord’s complaint handling, particularly delays in responding and its refusal to provide a review hearing at stage three on the basis it had changed to a two stage complaints process. The landlord has supplied its complaints procedure dated 8 April 2019 under which it operated three stages with an independent review by a panel hearing or Director or senior person, at stage three.
  2. In regard to delays, following the resident raising a formal complaint on 13 May 2020, the landlord acknowledged his complaint on 14 May 2020, advising it would provide a response by 27 May 2020. However, the landlord failed to provide any complaint response to the resident until 16 June 2020. This response was outside of the 10-working day timeframe stated in its complaints procedure. It is also noted that this response did not advise the resident of the next stage of its complaint procedure.
  3. Following the resident’s reply of 16 June 2020 in which he complained that the landlord had only responded to one complaint, it issued two further short responses on 17 June 2020 on 22 June 2020. Neither of these responses addressed all the issues or made clear which stage the complaint was at yet on 25 June 2020, the landlord advised the resident that if he wished to escalate the complaint further, he should contact the Ombudsman. It repeated this advice in its email to the resident dated 14 August 2020, however, the landlord then issued two further complaint responses, under a different complaint reference, on 4 September 2020 and 27 October 2020.  Only the last response made clear it was the final response of its complaints process.
  4. Therefore, the lack of clear explanations from the landlord regarding how to escalate the complaint as well as a failure to address all the issues in its responses meant there was a delay in exhausting all stages. It is also evident that no independent review was carried out by either a Director/ senior officer or a two-person review panel as per stage three of its complaints process. The resident has said to the Ombudsman that he was told by the landlord this was because it had changed to a two-stage process however this is unclear from the available evidence.
  5. Therefore, the multiple responses issued by the landlord between the complaint of 13 May 2020 and the final response on 27 October 2020, meant there were several missed opportunities by the landlord to review its own complaints handling and resolve the dispute. This error and the lack of clarity provided to the resident regarding its escalation process caused confusion and amounts to evidence of service failure by the landlord.
  6. It is noted that the landlord did not offer the resident any compensation in its complaint responses in recognition of the service failures set out above including: delays in responding to repairs reported; the lack of clarity provided surrounding responsibility for the repairs and; failing to adequately communicate the status of the repairs to the resident. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it is fair and reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident an amount of compensation for the time and trouble caused, commensurate with these failings.  In the circumstance the landlord shall pay the resident £250.00 in compensation. This amount is at the high end of the lower compensation bracket (£50 to £250) in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance which is for instances of service failure by the landlord which have had an impact on the resident. Furthermore, in light of the landlord’s failure to address all the issues raised in the resident’s complaints and the lack of clear information provide regarding its escalation process, it is reasonable to order the landlord to pay the resident further compensation of £100.00 for the stress and inconvenience caused on this basis.
  7. It is acknowledged that the resident requests compensation for the damage caused to items including his sofa and carpet as a result of water ingress over a prolonged period. In its final response dated 27 October 2020, the landlord advised the resident that it was not responsible for personal items in the property damaged by water ingress as these falls under his contents insurance. Clause 2.2. of the landlord’s Repair policy makes clear it is not responsible for contents insurance and as such the landlord’s stated position in relation to the compensation for damaged possessions is in accordance with its policy.

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of cracks to the bedroom windowpane.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of water ingress into the property.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of cracks to a shared wall.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

  1. There were delays and poor communication by the landlord when handling the resident’s report of a cracked windowpane after it acknowledged the cause may be due to a latent defect.  This prompted the resident to take steps to liaise directly with the developer to arrange a replacement windowpane.
  2. The landlord failed to provide clear or accurate information to the resident about who was responsible for investigating and repairing cracks to the shared wall when he raised this issue with it. This has prolonged the length of time taken to establish who is responsible for any outstanding repair that may be deemed necessary to resolve the cracking to the shared wall.
  3. The landlord unreasonably delayed with responding to the resident’s reports of water ingress and failed to relay communications it had with the developer who agreed to provide the necessary repair after the resident contacted them directly. The landlord also failed to acknowledge this issue had been addressed in its final response.
  4. The landlord did not follow its complaint procedure when handling the resident’s complaints due to delays and a failure to fully address the resident’s complaint or clearly advise of its escalation process. Multiple response led to missed opportunities by the landlord to review its own complaints handling and resolve the dispute.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Pay the resident a total of £350 in compensation.
    2. Comply with the order for compensation within four weeks.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its internal processes to ensure it provides clear and accurate information about respective repairing responsibilities to shared ownership leaseholders, particularly when there are a number of parties involved in managing the property.