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

Great Places Housing Association (202323706)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202323706

Great Places Housing Association

8 April 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety inspections at his property.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord and lives in a flat in a block.
  2. The landlord wrote to all residents in the block on 29 November 2022 and said it was erecting scaffolding so it could complete a fire safety risk assessment. It said it planned to issue resident with a EWS1 inspection report. (An EWS1 form is used by a building owner to confirm to valuers and lenders that an external wall system (EWS), has been fire risk assessed by a suitable expert). The inspection took place over several days in November and December 2022.
  3. The landlord received a report following the Fire Risk Appraisal of External Walls (FRAEW) inspection on 28 March 2023. The report identified that 1 external wall posed a “high risk” of “fire spread”.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 17 April 2023. He said he had agreed a sale of his property and the buyer’s solicitor had asked for a copy of the EWS1 for the property. The landlord provided a copy of the EWS1 on 27 April 2023. The form confirmed that the fire risk was “significantly high that remedial works [were] required”.
  5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 17 May 2023 and said he was:
    1. Unhappy with the time taken to share the fire risk assessment.
    2. Concerned that there was a lack of information about the plans for remedial works.
    3. Concerned that this meant the sale of his property would fall through.
  6. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 8 June 2023. It said it had appointed a surveyor to inspect and agree the next steps in terms of the remedial works needed. It said it would share more information when it had it. It accepted the issue was causing the resident “stress and uncertainty”, but said it had acted in line with its policies and procedures around fire safety.
  7. The resident asked the landlord to take his complaint to stage 2 of its procedure on 13 June 2023. He said he was unhappy it had not yet provided an action plan for the works, and had given “no explanation” of why it was taking “so long”. The resident contacted the landlord on 16 June 2023 to tell it the buyer for his property had pulled out.
  8. The landlord wrote to all residents in the block to inform them that its evacuation policy in the block had changed. It said in the event of a fire, residents should now evacuate rather than “stay put”, as per previous advice.
  9. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 July 2023, and said:
    1. It had completed a FRAEW at the end of November 2022 in order to comply with the Building Safety Act 2022. Due to a national shortage of surveyors able to complete such surveys it took 3 to 6 months to receive reports.
    2. It had not passed on the costs of surveys to its leaseholders.
    3. It had been in contact with the developer of the property. The developer had signed the Government’s Developer Remediation Contract (DRC). The DRC meant developers would do remedial fire safety works to properties to ensure costs are not passed on to leaseholder.
    4. The developer was going to do its own FRAEW inspection to decide on its next steps. The landlord said it would provide an update when there was a “clear plan of action” for the remedial works.
    5. The level of communication was not “sufficient” for a property in that situation.
    6. It delayed issuing communication until there was something to update about, but accepted it should have provided regular communication to provide assurances it was progressing.
    7. It offered to refund the cost of the sales pack the resident had paid (£200). It also said any future sales packs for the resident’s property would be provided free of charge.

Events after the complaints process

  1. The landlord contacted the resident on 24 October 2023 and said it was still chasing the developer about when the inspection would go ahead.
  2. The resident contacted us on 13 November 2023 and asked us to investigate his complaint. He said the landlord failed to provide enough information about the fire risk assessment and a “9 week gap” in communication about the issue caused him to lose the sale of his property. He said he wanted the landlord to reimburse him for financial losses he had experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the matter.
  3. The developer contacted the landlord on 7 December 2023 and said it agreed the property met the criteria for it to qualify under the DRC. It agreed it would now inspect to do its own fire risk assessments to identify any remedial works needed.
  4. In March 2024, the landlord offered to buy the resident’s property. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to complete a valuation on 7 March 2024. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 March 2024 to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s valuation of the property. He said it was lower than previous offers he had received. The landlord offered to pay for the resident to get his own valuation done in April 2024.
  5. The landlord completed the purchase of the property from the resident in August 2024. At the time, the developer had not completed its own fire safety survey.

Assessment and findings

Scope of our investigation

  1. The resident was evidently unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the fire safety inspections. He raised a particular concern that its handling of the matter caused him a quantifiable financial loss. He claimed this was due to sales of his property falling through and increased mortgage costs, due to rates going up. We acknowledge the evident distress the resident experienced due to multiple sales falling through. However, this matter is better suited to a court to decide.
  2. Following the Grenfell tragedy of 2017, it is accepted that changes in fire safety regulations and wider concerns about fire safety are impacting on residents’ ability to sell their properties. However, whether the landlord’s handling of the matter caused the resident to lose a sale and amounted to a quantifiable financial loss is not within the remit of this investigation.
  3. Our Scheme sets out that we may not consider matters we consider it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal, or procedure”. We have decided that the above applies given the circumstances of this case. This is because it is outside our remit to establish whether the landlord’s handling of the fire safety issue solely and directly caused the sales to fall through. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if he wants to pursue this aspect of his complaint further. Instead, we have considered the landlord’s overall response and whether its actions were reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. When the resident asked us to investigate his complaint he said the landlord’s handling of the matter caused an “extreme detriment” to his mental health. We acknowledge the serious nature of this issue and the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury.
  5. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if he considers his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. However, we have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response in July 2023. At the time of its stage 2 response the substantive issues in the case were outstanding. For fairness, this Service has increased the scope of the investigation beyond the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This is so we can fully consider the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues raised in the complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety inspections at his property.

  1. Since Grenfell tragedy of 2017 the fire safety of regulations have changed, and in response the Government passed the Building Safety Act 2022 in to law. Under the Building Safety Act 2022 a building that is at least 11 meters is classified as a “relevant building” which triggers leaseholder protections, meaning such buildings are subject to specific fire safety rules and landlord responsibilities. 
  2. Following the implementation of the Building Safety Act, the building which the resident’s property is in became a “relevant building”. It was appropriate for the landlord to commission a fire safety risk assessment of the building in November/December 2022. This is evidence it took its responsibilities for fire safety and risk assessing seriously.
  3. The available evidence indicates the resident first asked the landlord for a copy of the EWS1 for the property on 17 April 2023. The landlord provided it on 27 April 2023. This was within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord failed to include any information about the remedial works, or what it planned to do. This was a failing in its communication about the matter. It was apparent the resident was concerned that the sale of his property might fall through. This was distressing for him. The landlord’s poor communication at the time did little to reassure the resident. We acknowledge the landlord was not in a position to give definitive information about actions it planned to take at that time. But, its communication lacked the appropriate detail or reassurance for the resident that it was seeking to progress the matter with urgency.
  4. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response lacked the appropriate level of detail. We acknowledge the landlord gave an explanation of a reason for the delay. This was appropriate. We also acknowledge that it was not in a position to provide dates or timeframes for remedial works at that point. However, it would have been reasonable to provide dates of its expected next actions, or let the resident know when it would provide its next update. Such actions may have helped reassure him it was progressing with the matter.
  5. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response gave more detail, which went some way to putting right it the errors in its stage 1 response. It explained why it had done the risk assessment. It also accepted that its communication was poor up to that point. It showed learning about the need to provide regular updates regardless of whether progress was made. This is evidence it sought to adopt our dispute resolution principle of learning from outcomes.
  6. The landlord also used its stage 2 complaint response to explain the latest position on the remedial works. (that it was exploring with the developer if it was responsible for the remedial works). This went some way to putting right its lack of communication about the issue up to that point. It is noted the resident was disappointed it had not yet produced an action plan for the works. However, it was reasonable that the landlord decided to explore this avenue in the circumstances.
  7. The evidence shows that between July and December 2023, the landlord and developer were in negotiations about whether the developer was responsible for any remedial works. This evidently delayed the matter getting resolved. We acknowledge the distress and frustration this must have caused the resident. The evidence shows that the delay was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. We have seen evidence it was chasing the developer to progress with the matter, which was appropriate. It was reasonable for the landlord to check if the developer was responsible for the remedial works. If the landlord had gone ahead with the works without checking this, it would have passed the costs on to residents, which may have led to a significant increase in service charges. However, it also failed to learn from earlier errors in its communication as it did not provide the resident with regular updates at that time. The landlord missed an opportunity to reassure the resident it was trying to progress with the matter.
  8. It was evidently frustrating that the landlord was unable to give more detail or assurances of what the plan was for remedial works, or when they would start at that time. We welcome the fact the landlord acknowledged its communication should have been better. The evidence shows the landlord was not in a position to give a plan and given it was exploring this matter further with the developer. This was based on legal advice it had received from the developer’s legal representatives, which we have also seen. This was because the developer had decided, under the DRC, that it was responsible for the remedial works. It was appropriate for the landlord to rely on legal advice received. We also welcome the fact it was exploring a solution that meant its leaseholders would not have to pay for the remedial works.
  9. It was reasonable that the landlord offered to buy the resident’s property, in March 2024. This is evidence it showed understanding for the impact the situation had on the resident. It took a supportive approach to reduce the distress he was experiencing, and it was not strictly obliged to offer this.
  10. We acknowledge the resident was unhappy with the valuation the surveyor gave the property. It is not within the remit of this investigation to comment on the reasonableness of the valuation. The evidence shows the landlord followed accepted industry practice and instructed a Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) approved surveyor to complete a valuation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  11. It was also reasonable that it offered to pay for the resident to get his own valuation done. The landlord explained that as it had a financial interest in other properties in the block, it was not in its interests to ask a surveyor for a lower valuation. Its actions were supportive, transparent, and sought to build trust with the resident. We acknowledge the resident had difficulty in sourcing a surveyor to complete a valuation. This contributed to a delay in progressing with the landlord purchasing the property. This further delay was outside of the landlord’s control. We welcome the fact the landlord has now completed the purchase of the resident’s property.
  12. The landlord’s offer to buy the resident’s property, and offer to refund the £200 for its sales pack, was appropriate to put things right in the circumstances of this case. The landlord does not need to do anything further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of redress, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolved errors in its response to the resident’s concerns about fire safety inspections at his property.

Recommendations

  1. We recommend the landlord pays the resident the £200 refund it offered for the sales pack unless this has already been paid. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress by the landlord is based on an understanding that this compensation will be paid.