London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202319875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319875

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

20 November 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of an incorrect EWS1 form.
2. Requests for updates regarding cladding remediation works.
3. Request to buy back his property.
4. Enquiries about increased service charges.
5. Complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat in a block that is over 18 metres high. In December 2017, he purchased 40% of the property under the shared ownership scheme. The landlord, who is the head leaseholder, owns the remaining 60% share. The block is owned by the freeholder, who appoints a managing agent to service the building.
On 20 October 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask if his attempts to sell his property would be “affected by cladding related matters”. The landlord responded the following day to confirm that the managing agent had sent it the EWS1, which should allow him to sell “without any issues”. The resident confirmed to the landlord on 24 December 2020 that he wanted to sell his property.
Following conclusion of the nomination period, the resident tried to sell his property on the open market. He wrote to the landlord on 14 October 2021 to say that, throughout the selling process, he had received “a number of offers” that had “fallen through, the most recent again down to cladding”. He stated that he would not have spent in “excess of £2,000” had he known he would have had issues selling his property. He added that his service charge had been increasing significantly as a result of the cladding issue. The landlord has not provided evidence of any further correspondence between it and resident between October 2021 and February 2022.
On 25 March 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord to ask if it could provide him with “an explanation for the significant increase” in his service charge. He added that he had been trying to sell his flat for over 15 months and had sales fall through “because of the erroneous ESW1 form” it had provided to him. The landlord responded on 4 April 2022 with details on how the service charge had been calculated. On 20 May 2022, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the remediation works, and it responded to him on 25 May 2022 to confirm that the freeholder had not given it an estimated start time. The landlord has not provided evidence of any further correspondence between it and resident between June 2022 and February 2023.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 21 February 2023. He stated that:
1. The landlord had advised him that he “should be able to sell without any issues”. It sent him an EWS1 form, provided by the managing agent, with a B1 rating (combustible materials were present, but the fire risk was sufficiently low that no remedial works were required). This was “clear misinformation”.
2. As a result of the “invalid” EWS1 form, he had been “forced to cease marketing” his flat.
3. He had been “passed from pillar to post” between the landlord and managing agent over who could provide guidance on when remediation work would begin.
4. The service charge he was being asked to pay would “render the flat close to unsellable”.
5. There was one way of remedying this situation, which would be for the landlord to buy back his 40% share of the flat.
Between 22 February 2023 and March 2023 the resident corresponded with the landlord and managing agent regarding his service charges. On 9 March 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask for an update on his “reverse staircasing request”. It responded on 10 March 2023 and stated that his building did not meet the criteria under its voluntary buy back policy, and that it would only consider buying back a property under exceptional circumstances. The resident responded the same day to say he was not satisfied with the landlord’s response. He stated that his exceptional circumstances were that he was given an incorrect ESW1 form, which rendered his property “unmortgageable”. He added that, for over 12 months, he had been waiting for remediation works to be carried out and had “received absolutely no guidance on when” they would begin, and end.
The landlord wrote back to the resident on 17 March 2023. It provided him with details on recent government guidance on protecting leaseholders from remediation costs and stated that:
1. If he wished to appeal the buyback decision, it would do its best to support him. However, it may not be successful and could take around 12 months.
2. It had tried to explore what action it could take to support the resident’s sale. However, as it was not the freeholder of the block and not responsible for providing the EWS1 form, it was “very limited” on the assistance it could provide.
The resident wrote back on the same day to raise a stage 1 complaint on the grounds that:
1. The landlord had provided him with an “incorrect” EWS1 form and had incorrectly told him that he would have no problem selling his flat.
2. He was having to pay an “unsustainably high service charge” that had rendered his property “unsellable”.
3. The landlord had failed for 2 years to provide any information on when remediation works would start.
4. He had hoped a voluntary buy back arrangement would have been the solution.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day and, on 3 May 2023 its buy back panel reviewed his request. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It stated that:
1. It had explained to him on 16 May 2023 that its buy back panel had not yet come to a decision as it required more information. It was unable to give him a precise timeframe but would provide updates.
2. On 3 March 2023, the managing agent had sent him an email stating it had looked through the 2022/23 service charge estimate.
3. Any surplus or deficit received by the managing agent during that year would be included within his 2022/23 final account statement, which he would receive before the end of September 2023.
4. On 4 March 2023, it had sent him an “apportionment letter” for the 2023/24 budget, outlining how the service charge estimate was calculated. On 6 March 2023 it sent him copies of the 2022 and 2023 budgets provided to it by the managing agent, along with the information for 2022 to have in advance of the 2022/23 final service charge statements.
5. On 4 May 2023 it received an update from the managing agent stating that “after many months of negotiating and discussions”, it had sent him an outline of the proposed arrangement on 15 May 2023.
6. The freeholder had signed “the government’s binding pledge contract to remediate or fund the remediation of any life-critical fire safety issues impacting” any of the landlord’s buildings that it had “developed or refurbished in the last 30 years, and that are 11 metres or more in height. The resident’s block fell within the scope of the contract.
7. It was sorry the EWS1 form provided by the managing agent was deemed “invalid”. Government guidance and legislation around building safety had been subject to regular review and the document may not have been deemed sufficient or valid as it may not have considered new guidance or legislation.
8. It was waiting on its fire safety team to let it know if the resident was eligible for an assurance letter. This would allow him to sell his property in the interim while the remedial works were progressing.
9. It wanted to apologise for the delay in responding to his complaint and to offer £380 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £120 for distress and inconvenience.
  2. £200 for time and effort.
  3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
  4. £10 for the late complaint response.
On 18 May 2023 the resident had declined this offer apart from the £10 for the late complaint response.
The resident called the landlord on 27 July 2023 to escalate his complaint. He said he wanted it to buy back his property and remained unhappy he was unable to sell his flat due to what he felt was the landlord’s “fault”. The landlord acknowledged his escalation request on the same day and issued its stage 2 response on 29 August 2023. It stated that:
1. It had not been provided with any additional information as to why the EWS1 form was invalid. Its neighbourhood lead had escalated the matter to the managing agent on a number of occasions and would update him once it received further information.
2. It would let him know as soon as it could provide him with an assurance letter, which would allow him to sell his property while the remedial works were being completed.
3. It had requested supporting information for the resident’s buy back request to be considered. Unfortunately, it had not received the information in time for the buy back panel meeting held on 16 August 2023. The next meeting was scheduled for 6 September 2023, where the panel would further consider his buy back request.
4. In addition to its earlier explanation, it said credits identified by the managing agent would be added in the next financial year.
5. It had also been advised that the service charge final statement for 2022/2023 would be sent out the end of September 2023.
6. The managing agent had advised it that the freeholder was not yet in the position to start the remediation works.
7. It wanted to make the resident a revised offer of £530 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £350 for distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble.
  2. £100 in recognition of the service failure relating to the EWS1 form.
  3. £80 in recognition of delays responding to his complaint.
On 1 October 2023, the resident approached the Ombudsman. He stated he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response because it had:
1. Failed to provide an explanation of why he was sent an incorrect EWS1 form.
2. Not given any updates on when remediations works would take place.
3. Made him pay service charges for remedial works that had not yet started.
It is not clear when the landlord informed the resident that its buy back panel had turned down his request. However, he wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2024 to ask it to reconsider its decision. The resident wrote to the landlord on 31 March 2024 to confirm that remediation works had started on his building and that he was in receipt of an assurance letter. The landlord presented his case again to its buy back panel on 10 April 2024. Following the meeting, it wrote to him on the same day to confirm the panel had turned down his request again. It explained that this was due to the fact remedial works had started and the resident had been given a letter of assurance. It stated that, because there was a clear timescale within which the works would be completed and that leaseholders would not bear the cost of those works, this was “normally sufficient for mortgage lenders to lend on the property”.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The government’s expectations in relation to cladding and fire safety were only detailed in guidance. This means there was an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chose 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.
These points will be considered when assessing whether the landlord’s actions and response to the complaint were fair in all the circumstances.
The resident raised concerns to the Service that the landlord had sent his personal information to a third party. As this issue did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that we can consider. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this report. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. Once he has received the landlord’s final response, he may then approach the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) if he remains unhappy.
The ICO is an independent body set up to uphold information rights. It has the power to investigate data breaches, to assess whether an organisation has failed to comply with the relevant data handling provisions, and to make orders aimed at putting things right. It follows that, if the resident remains unhappy with how the landlord responds to his concerns about its data breach, and the actions that it took in response, he should refer the matter to the ICO accordingly.

Report of an incorrect EWS1 form

The government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ (AN14) 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 a 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. This was 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.
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 one was needed. EWS1 forms are issued with separate ratings. A B1 rating means that combustible materials are present, but the fire risk is sufficiently low that no remedial works are required. A B2 rating means that the fire risk is high enough that extensive remedial works are required. EWS1 forms are issued by a qualified fire engineer following an assessment.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints, published in May 2021 stated that, by mid-2019, the impact of compliance with AN14 and the approach being taken by many lenders was widely known about. Therefore, when landlords received enquiries or applications from residents to sell their properties or to staircase, we would have expected landlords to provide information to ensure residents were aware of AN14, and the possible implications of compliance on lender decisions.
The report goes onto state that landlords need to be aware of, and take steps to avoid the impact of misinformation when communicating with residents. Issues concerning cladding and compliance with AN14 are both technical and complex by nature and landlords should ensure that they are providing timely, understandable and accurate information to residents that is kept under review for accuracy.
The exact date is unclear but the evidence shows the managing agent had obtained an EWS1 form around September/October 2020. Once it provided this to the landlord, the landlord then made it available to all its leaseholders in the block. This was appropriate.
The landlord was acting on information given to it by the freeholder. It was entitled to rely on the outcome of an assessment that was carried out by a suitably qualified engineer. For this reason, when it advised the resident that the form should allow him to sell his property “without any issues” it can reasonably be accepted it was acting in good faith. There are no records to show it would have been aware at the time that there was a problem with the EWS1 form. Therefore, that the form the landlord had passed onto the resident was “invalid” was beyond its control.
However, the landlord could have made greater efforts to communicate with the managing agent so it could provide the resident with a proper explanation for the error. Its stage 2 response states that it had tried to escalate the matter to the managing agent. However, it has not provided copies of any correspondence between it and the agent to evidence that it was chasing up any information that would have allowed it to properly address the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 2 response, it attributed the error to regularly changing government guidance. However, this was an assumption and not based on a proper investigation of the matter. The landlord could have done more to encourage the managing agent to take the issue up with the engineer who issued the EWS1 form. This would have allowed it to provide a proper and more transparent response. The lack of an informed explanation only served to exacerbate the resident’s frustration and distress at not being able to sell his property.
The resident informed the landlord in December 2020 that he was putting his property on the market. It should therefore have been aware of the impact of the guidance on mortgage applications, and of sales of its own properties involving ongoing fire safety investigations falling through. It was in a unique position to provide timely and appropriate advice to the resident, drawing on its knowledge in the housing sector and from its direct experience.
There was therefore a missed opportunity by the landlord to explain the situation in relation to the AN14 guidance and to detail the potential impact of the guidance on mortgage applications. This would have helped him understand the risks in putting the property on the market at that time. It could have been more open and transparent regarding the situation before the resident incurred any fees. That it could not evidence that it gave any such advice was a failing and demonstrates a lack of customer focus.
It is noted that the landlord sent residents a letter on 9 October 2023 informing them that the freeholder had confirmed it could not pass any remediation costs onto leaseholders. Furthermore, it provided the resident with an assurance letter in March 2024, which would help him sell his property before completion of remedial works. This was appropriate in supporting the resident to sell his property.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £530 compensation, £100 of which was in recognition of its failures with regard to the invalid EWS1 form. Its efforts to put things right are noted. However, its offer does not adequately recognise the impact on the resident of the landlord’s poor communication around the EWS1 form. Furthermore, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord took sufficient steps to make enquiries with the managing agent about the EWS1 form, and why it was incorrect. While this would not have changed the outcome for the resident, he wished to know how the error had occurred and the landlord ultimately failed to address this. Therefore, while some failings were appropriately acknowledged, the landlord has not demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to investigate the matter with the managing agent. We have therefore made a finding of service failure and will order additional redress. We will also order that the landlord makes enquiries with the managing agent in order to provide clarification and transparency around the error that occurred.

Requests for updates regarding cladding remediation works

Because the landlord is not the freeholder of the building, it is unable to obtain an EWS1 form itself. The obligation is on the freeholder to do this. However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints, published in May 2021, states that, although it is the freeholder who is responsible for acting on the government’s guidance, it is the landlord who owns the relationship with the resident. Landlords must be proactive in their communication with the freeholder, whether directly or through a managing agent. It adds that landlords must ensure they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every 3 months, even where there is little or no change.
The landlord wrote to leaseholders on 9 October 2023 to state that it did not have any responsibility for undertaking the remediation works. It said that, for this reason, leaseholders needed to obtain any updates regarding timeframes from the managing agent appointed by the freeholder. That the landlord put the onus on the leaseholders to contact the freeholder directly for updates was inappropriate.
Given the impact the planned remediation works were having on the resident’s ability to sell his property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made efforts to provide regular and detailed updates from an early stage. It is noted that the landlord provided a comprehensive update on the works in its stage 1 response. It is unclear why it could not have done this at an earlier stage, or provide ongoing updates. It should not have taken the resident to make a complaint for the landlord to have given him details of the freeholder’s plans.
The evidence shows the landlord provided the resident with a single point of contact. This was appropriate. However, there is no evidence it had made reasonable attempts to obtain clearer target timescales from the freeholder, or that it gave any indication of when it would provide regular updates to leaseholders. This would have helped reassure the resident that the landlord was taking positive steps to obtain a valid 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.
It is noted that, in response to his enquiries, the landlord had told the resident that it had no up-to-date information on the remedial works. The spotlight report 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 even where there is little or no change.
The landlord has provided no records to show it made regular contact with the managing agent and freeholder in order that it could update residents accordingly. Any updates it provided were minimal and were given only in response to enquiries or complaints the resident had made. There is no indication the landlord considered holding regular meetings with residents for example, publishing up to date information on its website or sending newsletters. 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 making efforts to provide, whenever possible.
It is acknowledged that the obligation was on the freeholder to ensure the remediation works on the building were completed. Therefore, that the works were subject to delays was beyond the landlord’s control. However, its poor communication with the freeholder, managing agent and resident with regard to remediation works, and its lack of adequate efforts to provide regular updates would have caused unnecessary additional distress. That the landlord could not demonstrate it made reasonable efforts to communicate with the resident about remediation works was a failing.
However, in its stage 2 response, the landlord offered its apologies for the lack of information it was able to provide about the works. Furthermore, it offered the resident £530 compensation, £350 of which was in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to him, and for his time and trouble. The landlord has therefore made reasonable efforts to put things right. For this reason, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Request to buy back the 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 circumstances that would be considered “exceptional” 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 resident’s situation with regard the sale of his property. 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 unclear whether the landlord had offered the resident other options such as equity release. As the resident was clear he wanted to sell his property, he may not have been minded to consider any temporary measures. However, given the financial difficulties he told it he was experiencing, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances to have explored if there were other ways the landlord could have supported him in the meantime.
It is noted that the landlord considered the resident’s request a third time, in April 2024, following conclusion of the complaints process. On this occasion the landlord acted appropriately by providing him with a clear explanation to him of why his application had not met its voluntary buy back criteria.

Increased service charges

Where a complaint concerns service charges, it is important to distinguish between the remits of the Ombudsman and the First Tier Property Tribunal (FTT). The Ombudsman can investigate:
1. Whether the resident received the service being paid for.
2. Whether the standard and level of service provided was appropriate.
3. Whether the landlord provided key information to the resident on request about the service charges.
The FTT is responsible for considering disputes about whether a service charge is payable and may determine whether the level of service charge demanded is reasonable. These matters are outside the remit of the Ombudsman to consider.
Our focus in this investigation is therefore on whether the landlord provided a fair and reasonable response to the resident’s queries and complaints, rather than on the amount of money he was required to pay for service’s covered by the service charge.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, published in September 2020 states that:
1. Landlords must provide a comprehensive narrative explaining the charges and calculation methods.
2. This narrative should accurately reflect the charges that are being made and should accompany the invoice providing greater transparency for residents.
3. Information on service provision and charges should be made available to residents upon request.
4. Landlords should provide clear information to residents on how to raise concerns if they are not happy with the level of service provided.
The evidence shows that the landlord gave prompt and detailed responses to the resident’s queries regarding his service charges. The records show that the landlord often responded to his enquiries within 24 hours. It provided details of the way the managing agent had calculated the charges. It also obtained information from the managing agent in order to provide responses to the resident’s queries. It is noted that the landlord also provided the resident information in order to help clarify the reasons for the charges, which it listed in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. Furthermore, the landlord signposted him to sources of advice and support if he was experiencing difficulties with his service charge costs.
The landlord has demonstrated that it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with transparency around his service charges. It also took appropriate steps to liaise with the managing agent in order to address the resident’s service charge enquiries and to provide details of where he could obtain financial advice.

Complaint

The landlord’s complaints policy at the time of the resident’s complaint stated it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If it could not meet this timescale, it would 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 evidence shows that it took the landlord nearly 41 working days to issue its stage 1 response. Additionally, it took 24 working days to respond at stage 2. Despite the excessive delay in responding to the stage 1 complaint, there are no records to indicate it had contacted the resident during this time to provide any updates or agree new timescales.
Furthermore, there is no evidence it sought to explain why its response was delayed or offer any apologies. Although its delay in responding at stage 2 was not excessive, the landlord should have contacted the resident to inform him its response would be delayed. That it failed to respond within its timescales or maintain reasonable communication during its investigation periods was a departure from its policy, and the Code. This would have caused the resident additional distress at a time when he was waiting for answers as to why he was unable to sell his property.
It is noted however that the landlord made efforts to put things right. It apologised in its stage 2 response for its delays in responding to the resident’s complaints. Furthermore, it offered him £80 compensation in recognition of its poor complaint handling. We are satisfied that this was a proportionate offer in the circumstances. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In March 2024, following a previous Ombudsman investigation (202309955) we ordered the landlord to take action in relation to complaint handling failures that had been identified at the time. On 22 May 2024, the landlord confirmed that it had taken steps to ensure it policy aligned with the Code 2024, and that refresher training was being rolled out to all complaint handlers. We are satisfied that this should help prevent a recurrence of the issues highlighted in this case. As such, we have made no further orders in relation to complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of an incorrect EWS1 form.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily addresses its response to the resident’s requests for updates regarding cladding remediation works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to buy back his property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about increased service charges.
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 complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for the failures identified in this report, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on apologies.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication regarding an incorrect EWS1 form, (this replaces the offer of £100 it had made in its stage 2 response for this specific element of the resident’s complaint).
3. Make enquiries with the managing agent in order to provide the resident with a proper response with regard to how the error with the EWS1 form occurred. The landlord to confirm to the Ombudsman that it has done this, within the time specified above.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to pay the resident:
1. The £350 it had offered in its stage 2 response in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor communication regarding the remediation works.
2. The £80 it had offered to the resident in recognition of its poor complaint handling.