Notting Hill Genesis (NHG) (202210690)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210690

Notting Hill Genesis (NHG)

23 October 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns following an electrical fire in a communal area of the building.
2. Handling of concerns raised by the resident about fire safety.
3. Handling of the resident’s request for it to ‘buy back’ the property.
4. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident occupied the property as a leaseholder under a shared ownership scheme with the landlord. She lived in the property with her partner and young child from 2008 until they moved out at the end of July 2022. The resident has since sold her share in it.

On 1 April 2022 a fire broke out in a cupboard in a communal corridor outside the resident’s property. The cupboard housed the fuse boxes for properties in the building, including the resident’s. The London Fire Brigade (LFB) and the District Network Operator (DNO) attended and secured the area and the landlord’s contractor attended later that day to inspect and conduct repairs. The contractor needed parts and could not complete the repairs for several days. As there was no electricity supply to the resident’s property the landlord agreed to cover the cost of temporary accommodation for her and her family during this period.
On 4 April 2022 the landlord informed the resident that it would be charging the cost of the repairs to her. Its contractor had reported that the probable cause of the fire was due to an overload of appliances or a short-circuiting of the system in the resident’s property causing the fuse to blow. It said only the resident’s isolator switch and mains unit were affected within the communal cupboard and that she was responsible for repair and maintenance of the electrical equipment serving her property. The resident refuted this and denied that she had overloaded the system. She noted the fuse box in the corridor was outside of her property, in a locked cupboard, accessed only by the landlord, and said it was therefore its responsibility.
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 August 2022. She said she had moved out of the property due to ongoing concerns about fire safety and wanted it to buy the property back at market value. She summarised events on the day of the fire and described the impact it had. The family had been due to go on holiday that day but had to cancel their flights. They had no electricity and had to wait in a cold property for the landlord to attend, whilst struggling to feed and care for their baby without amenities. The resident expressed frustration with the landlord’s responsiveness on the day and its handling of their move to temporary accommodation.
She also felt the landlord had not thoroughly investigated the cause of the fire and was unreasonable for holding her responsible. She expressed concern that the fire did not trigger the smoke alarms in the communal corridor. She said she had reported numerous times that the alarms were not working but had received no assurance from the landlord that it had addressed this. She described the financial and emotional impact the situation had on her, including the landlord’s handling of it, which had resulted in her seeking psychological support.
The landlord issued its complaint response on 30 August 2022. It felt it had been appropriately responsive overall. It noted that it had funded temporary accommodation for the family but accepted there had been some miscommunication around this. It explained that the smoke control system in the corridor was working as it should but expressed regret that it had not assured her at the time of her queries. It acknowledged that this had exacerbated her safety concerns.
The landlord maintained the resident was responsible for repair and maintenance of the electrical apparatus serving her property, according to its interpretation of the lease. As a result, it charged her for the cost of repairs totalling £440.40. It said it would not investigate the cause of the fire further as there was no suggestion of communal issues that warranted this.
It apologised to the resident and offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to follow up on her concerns in a timely manner. It also offered a rebate of the management fees for the property between April and August 2022, totalling £92. This reflected delays in updating her and in responding to the complaint. It refused to buy the property back from her as it said she did not meet the criteria under its policy.
The resident escalated the complaint on 8 September 2022. She disputed the landlord’s account of its responsiveness on the day and said it had not addressed the high turnover of Property Management Officers (PMOs). She maintained it had not conducted sufficient enquires to establish the cause of the fire and raised concerns about the competency and objectivity of the contractor, whose findings the landlord had relied upon. She remained unhappy that it had delayed in seeking advice from its solicitor about responsibility for the fire and repairs, and did not agree with its position. She also considered it unacceptable that it had delayed in assuring her about the smoke control system. She reiterated her request that the landlord buy the property back at market value.
The landlord provided its final response on 2 November 2022. It maintained the resident was responsible for the repair but recognised that it should have told her about the option to raise an insurance claim. As a result, it agreed to cover the cost of the repairs.
It provided an additional £250 for distress caused by delays in the process, including the delay in its stage 2 response. It provided no breakdown, however the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to conclude that 50% was for the impact of its delay in assuring the resident about the smoke safety system and 50% for complaint handling delays. This brought the total offer of compensation to £1,032.40, including reimbursement for the repairs. This is in addition to the cost of the temporary accommodation and associated expenses at £1,687.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service. She is seeking an apology from the landlord and reimbursement of the costs she incurred in rent and service charges when she moved out of the property. She would also like the landlord to properly establish the cause of the fire by investigating what work it did in the communal cupboard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident refutes the landlord’s position with regards the cause of the fire and responsibility for the electrical equipment serving the property. Unfortunately, we are unable to decide on these matters as they are outside of our remit and expertise.
To establish what constitutes the demise relies on an interpretation of a clause in the lease which is in dispute. A lease is a legal document and, as such, it is considered more appropriate for this to be examined and decided by a court of law, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme.
Nor is this Service able to determine the cause of the fire as this requires electrical expertise. This investigation has considered whether the landlord made sufficient enquiries to establish the cause, but this is limited due to questions which remain about responsibility for the electrical apparatus. It has examined the landlord’s overall response to the fire and considered whether it acted fairly and reasonably in line with the facts that are undisputed and its policies and procedures.
In her communication with this Service, the resident described the landlord’s handling of the incident as part of an ongoing pattern of poor service that had caused her constant stress. This included it not fixing things, or not fixing them properly, increases in fees, rudeness and dismissiveness from staff, and she believes it mis-sold the property to her. However, there is no evidence that she raised these issues as a formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, this Service can only consider complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. This is so that we can be sure the landlord has had a reasonable opportunity to resolve the issues internally before we intervene. As a result, while the resident’s concerns are noted, issues which did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint fall outside the scope of this investigation.

Response to electrical fire

Under the terms of the lease the resident is responsible for repairs to the property. The landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance in shared areas of the building. Responsibility for the electrical apparatus outside of, but serving, the resident’s property is contested.
Regardless of whose domain this was, given the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to respond, investigate and make the apparatus safe. This was a serious situation, the fire was in a communal area, and it was not yet clear that only the resident’s fuse box was affected. Nor was the landlord aware of the cause of the fire.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it should attend to major electrical faults as an emergency within 4 hours. It should restore major services within 24 hours. The resident reported the incident at 8am, and the landlord’s contractor attended at 2pm. While this was outside of the timeframe specified in its policy, the LFB and DNO had attended and made the equipment safe so this was not an unreasonable delay.
However, the situation and any delay was to the detriment of the resident who sat in a cold flat without amenities. She felt the landlord had not been appropriately communicative. In its initial complaint response the landlord explained that the PMO had not immediately seen her email about the fire as, at 8am, this had been outside of her working hours. It advised her to report out–of–hours emergency repairs by phone. The landlord’s repairs policy refers to an emergency 24/7 repairs line, but it is not clear that the resident had access to this.
While it was understandable that the landlord did not immediately pick up the resident’s email, the resident was frustrated by the response. She noted that she had also made numerous calls to no avail. The building property management company also echoed this and said they had tried several numbers but were unable to reach anyone at the landlord. It is not clear what teams or contacts they were trying, and, in the absence of this information, the landlord cannot be held responsible for any initial delay in its response. However, it should update residents and stakeholders with key contact information on a regular basis, including its out–of–hours repairs service. A recommendation has been made with regards this.
The resident felt understandably anxious about staying in the property given there was no electricity and the cause of the fire had not been established or communicated to her. She described making several calls to her PMO but was unsure what was happening and when the repairs would be conducted. The resident felt the PMO was inexperienced and said she had to guide her on what to do. She expressed frustration at the high staff turnover which she said had resulted in a PMO with no knowledge of the building.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the PMO’s communication with the resident so cannot comment in any detail on her response but appreciates there had been a high staff turnover. In its final response the landlord acknowledged this and said it was addressing the issue with the creation of senior PMOs. It explained that when PMOs leave they provide a handover and the landlord’s systems hold information about properties. The landlord’s response offers assurance, but it is unclear whether this has resulted in sufficient consistency in service for residents. A recommendation has been made below for it to review this.
The resident repeatedly asked to speak to the PMO’s manager, but it was several hours later, and after 5pm, when she made contact. The manager informed her she had only just learned what had happened. This frustrated the resident who said the PMO had informed her that the manager was aware of the situation. The Ombudsman is unable to establish whether the PMO had informed the manager but accepts the resident’s account that it told her different information. This understandably exacerbated her concerns that the matter was not being appropriately managed.
In its response the landlord said it did not consider there had been a delay in the manager contacting her, noting it allows for responses up to 24 hours. It felt it was reasonable for the PMO to oversee the situation. The Ombudsman appreciates that the PMO may have been awaiting an update from the contractor, and the manager may not have been immediately available. But the landlord could have been proactive in its communication and done more to explore and engage the family in discussion about alternative accommodation as the end of the working day approached and the property remained without electricity.
The landlord agreed to fund the cost of a hotel stay for the family. The Ombudsman understands this was on a discretionary basis, and it acted fairly in doing so. The PMO’s manager had initially refused the resident’s request for this, which the landlord accepted had caused her unnecessary stress. The resident remained dissatisfied with the way the manager had initially spoken to her during conversations about the decant, explaining that she had snapped and scoffed at her. She felt it had not addressed this in its complaint response. The landlord had acknowledged that it should have handled conversations sensitively. While it could have gone further and apologised for any offence caused, it responded on this point and accepted that it was at fault which was reasonable.
There was further confusion around the funding of the temporary accommodation. The landlord had suggested the resident extend the stay by an additional night but then advised her late on the day that the repairs had been completed and she should return. It subsequently said she would need to cover the cost of the last night’s stay. The landlord ultimately retracted this and agreed to fund it. In its complaint response it accepted that it had given her conflicting information and had caused her alarm. The resident had an 11-month-old baby and the prospect of packing and relocating at short notice caused her stress. The landlord was right to acknowledge its failing here and uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
Adding to the resident’s sense of frustration was her understanding that the landlord had not promptly informed her that the contractor had completed the work. She felt this had resulted in her staying an additional night in temporary accommodation unnecessarily. In its response the landlord said it had received confirmation that the contractor had concluded works late in the day and had updated her as soon as it was aware. This Service has not seen evidence of when the repairs were completed so cannot determine how promptly it acted, nor therefore find it at fault.
The works were completed and the resident was able to move back into the property on 6 April 2022. However, she remained concerned that the cause of the fire was undetermined as she felt the landlord had not conducted sufficient enquiries.
As established, the LFB and DNO were on scene before the landlord’s contractor. While it was appropriate that the landlord sent its contractor to inspect, we would also expect it to seek reports from the LFB and DNO as part of determining what had happened. The landlord provided internal correspondence that indicates it made no enquiries with the LFB prior to informing the resident of the cause of the fire based on its contractor’s report. The resident said she offered to provide the DNO report to the landlord but did not receive a response until she raised this again on 6 April 2022. It then asked her to forward it. The landlord failed to follow due process at this juncture, which was a failing and undermined the resident’s faith in it to take a holistic view of what had happened and why.
The resident also raised concerns that the landlord had not reviewed the DNO report prior to its initial response and said the DNO’s summary contradicted that of its contractor. The DNO report stated, ‘fire at internal isolator had blown 100a fuse’. The contractor concluded that the blown fuse had caused the fire. The resident considered there to be disparity on the position of whether the fire had caused, or resulted from, the blown fuse.
In its stage 2 response the landlord explained that, while the stage 1 complaint handler had not referred to the DNO report in her response, she had considered it. It discussed the DNO report within its final response and outlined its position. It explained that something had to have caused the fire, and it considered this to be the blown fuse, due to an overload of the appliances, and as per its contractor’s assessment. The DNO report made no mention of what had caused the fire.
While the Ombudsman makes no comment on the accuracy of the landlord’s conclusions, it considers the landlord to have acted reasonably by explaining that it had reviewed the DNO report, and by making its position on the cause of the fire clear within its final response. However, as established, it should have proactively requested the DNO report and contacted the LFB promptly.
The resident also raised concerns about the contractor who had attended on the day. She considered him incompetent and unprofessional, and explained that he nearly electrocuted himself. She said he had told her that he did not usually attend these sites and that he was just there to take a few photographs. She was upset to learn that the landlord had shared her concerns directly with the contractor and questioned how tactful it had been in doing so. She felt this brought his objectivity into question.
There are no notes of the call during which the landlord shared the resident’s concerns, so it is not clear what information it imparted. However, it was reasonable that the landlord addressed the resident’s concerns with the contractor. The contractor defended its operative, saying it was ‘preposterous’ to suggest that he was unqualified. The resident rightly noted that she had not alleged this and rather her concerns were about his competence and conduct.
The Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s experience and considers the landlord could have done more to investigate this. The resident reported that property management staff were present when he attended so it should have solicited their views for an independent account. However, while making no comment on the accuracy of the contractor’s findings, there is no evidence he misrepresented the situation, either deliberately or through incompetence.
The resident also asked that the landlord investigate what work it had conducted in the communal cupboard, which she suspected could have contributed to the cause of the fire. She noted she had raised concerns in November 2021 about an electrical smell coming from the cupboard following works.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider this as it is not clear that these works were conducted by the landlord, or on its behalf. The landlord said the incident did not warrant further investigation as it considered the issue to be with the resident’s equipment only. While the Ombudsman appreciates the resident lacked faith in the landlord’s conclusions, it has confirmed it did not conduct prior work on the resident’s fuse box and therefore had no records to this effect. This Service cannot order the landlord to investigate while there is a dispute about ownership of the apparatus.
The resident also challenged the landlord saying that she believed the fuse box had been installed incorrectly and that its staff had accepted this as the cause by referring to it as a ‘faulty box’. The landlord responded that it had used this language before any facts were known, based on what the resident had reported to be the cause of the incident. While the Ombudsman cannot determine whether the box was faulty or installed incorrectly, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable.
The resident was clear that she disagreed with the landlord’s interpretation of the lease on responsibility for the electrical apparatus. She argued that the DNO report attributed responsibility for electrical repairs to the ‘building network operator’, which it said was the landlord. The resident noted the property management team and all those involved had said it was the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord responded to this saying these parties were not aware of the terms of the lease. The Ombudsman agrees that responsibility comes down to an interpretation of the lease, which only a court can establish.
In response to the resident’s challenge that she was not responsible for the apparatus, the PMO said it would seek legal advice and respond to her on this point by 14 April 2022. It then extended this to 22 April 2022, but the response never came. The issue was left to drift due to a change in the resident’s PMO. While ultimately it maintained that the fuse box and electrical apparatus formed part of her demise, it rightly acknowledged that the delay had been unacceptable and offered a rebate of the management fee, which was in recognition of this and associated complaint handling delays. The landlord should have a system in place to ensure meaningful handovers between staff to provide consistency in Service. A recommendation has been made to this effect.
While the landlord considered the resident responsible for the repairs, it did not act appropriately in passing the cost on to her without referring her to the building insurer. The landlord purchases building insurance which the leaseholders fund through a service charge. The resident challenged the landlord on this, highlighting information contained in its leasehold policy that said such a claim might be appropriate in circumstances including fire damage.
The landlord accepted that it should have provided her with information on how she could make a claim. It agreed to cover the cost of the repairs as a result. However, the reasons it gave for not initially referring the resident to its insurer only served to further frustrate her. These included that there was ‘difficulty’ in proving the definitive cause of the fire, impacting on the success of the claim. This should not have prevented it from giving her the option to pursue a claim. Ultimately the landlord acted fairly in accepting fault and provided appropriate remedy by covering the costs.
While this Service cannot determine ownership of the electrical equipment in this case, it is accepted that the resident was unaware the landlord considered her responsible. She had no key to the communal cupboard and the wording in the lease was open to interpretation.
In 2020 this Service issued its Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership, and new builds. It identified that in leasehold tenancies there can be a lack of clarity about which party is responsible for what. It recommended that landlords improve lease agreements at the outset to avoid confusion or delays when trying to put things right when they go wrong. A more recent examination as part of this Service’s Insight report on shared ownership, issued in September 2022, has identified that this issue remains relevant.
The landlord produced a leasehold guide in July 2022 making it clear that leaseholders are ‘responsible for any pipes, cables and so on’ which serve only their home. It is unclear whether previous versions of the guide included this, but it took appropriate action in making its position clear from July 2022 onwards. The landlord could go further and make this expressly clear upon tenancy sign-up. Such clarity is crucial, not only to prevent disputes in such circumstances, but to promote fire safety.
In summary, there were failings in the landlord’s response to the electrical fire, which caused the resident unnecessary stress and undermined her faith in it. With regards its initial response to the fire, it could have communicated more clearly with the resident about the repair and her accommodation needs. It should also have promptly sought information from experts who were there at the scene when considering the cause of the fire. If its position was that the resident was responsible for the electrical apparatus, and therefore the repairs, it should have referred her to its insurer more promptly. It could also have been clearer with the resident that it considered this to be part of her demise from the onset of the tenancy.
The landlord provided comprehensive complaint responses in which it examined its handling of the incident and acknowledged some of its failings. It acted appropriately in covering the cost of the repairs and the family’s stay in temporary accommodation. It awarded £592 compensation in recognition of delays which had caused distress to the resident, however this centred on its response to her safety concerns and its response to her complaints. It should provide additional compensation of £250 for failings in its response to the electrical fire. This is in line with its compensation policy and this Service’s remedies guidance. It should also write to the resident and reiterate its apology for the failings it identified, and that were found in this investigation.
Overall, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the fire. This is in recognition of the steps taken by the landlord to address the resident’s concerns, but also of the further remedy required.
In addition to payment of compensation and an apology, the landlord is encouraged to review the systems it has in place to ensure meaningful handovers between incoming/outgoing staff. It should also regularly update its residents and property managers with key contact information including its out–of–hours repairs service.
The landlord is encouraged to review this Service’s Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds of 2020 and the more recently published Insight report on shared ownership. It should consider the recommendations, with specific reference to establishing clarity on the terms of the lease from the offset of the tenancy.

Concerns about fire safety

The resident reported that the smoke alarms in the communal corridor had not triggered during the fire. She raised this with the landlord’s sales team on 4 April 2022. She also emailed the PMO’s manager on the 5 April 2022 and said it had not addressed this concern. The landlord did not respond to this until 18 August 2022, after she had complained.
While it ultimately addressed the resident’s concern and assured her that the smoke system was functioning as it should, this was unacceptable. The impact of this remaining unaddressed was significant. It contributed to the resident’s sense that the building was not safe which resulted in her moving out.
The resident said that she had reported this concern numerous times previously. For the resident, the landlord’s unresponsiveness implied a lack of care and undermined her faith in it to keep her safe. While this Service does not doubt the resident, we have not seen records to this effect so cannot determine this.
The landlord acknowledged its failure to respond and reassure her, and expressed regret at the impact this had. It offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by this in its stage 1 response. It offered a further £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience at stage 2, of which the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to conclude that 50% was for the impact of its failure to reassure her. While not minimising the distress caused to the resident, the Ombudsman considers the £375 awarded under this category to be reasonable redress for this failing.
If it does not already do so, the landlord is encouraged to share key fire safety information with its residents, to offer assurance that the systems it has in place are adequate, and to provide transparency about the monitoring and servicing of its equipment.

Request for the landlord to ‘buy back’ the property

The landlord has a ‘leaseholder buy back policy’ which outlines the limited circumstances in which it would consider buying back the equity in a property. This is where there are immediate building health and safety concerns that it cannot sufficiently mitigate through on-site measures and that require permanent or long-term decanting. Or where the landlord is undertaking regeneration/redevelopment. It can consider and approve cases on an exceptional basis outside of these criteria. It makes decisions at its discretion, based on detailed analysis of the situation.
The resident contacted the landlord’s sales team on the day of the fire and requested that they buy it back. The team quoted the eligibility criteria and explained that it was unable to purchase her shares in line with its policy. The landlord reiterated this in its complaint responses.
The resident felt the property was unsafe to the extent that she moved out. In doing so, she continued to incur rent, service charges, and moving fees, totalling £15,600 before she sold the property. She feels the landlord is liable for these costs because the building presented a health and safety risk, and she could have avoided these costs if it had purchased the property.
The Ombudsman empathises with the significant emotional and financial toll this took on the resident. As discussed, the landlord failed to reassure her about the functionality of the smoke safety system in a timely manner. This impacted greatly on her sense of security and contributed to her move. The landlord rightly acknowledged this, offered an apology, and compensated her for the distress caused.
While the sum it offered does not equate to the losses incurred by the resident, it would not be fair to attribute full responsibility to the landlord. There is no evidence that the building presented immediate health and safety risks. The landlord offered assurance that the electrical system was safe prior to the resident’s return the property and suggested that she undertake further testing if she remained concerned. It also eventually provided assurance about the smoke safety system in the corridor, albeit late, in mid-August 2022.
Even if the circumstances did not meet the buyback criteria, the landlord could still have exercised discretion to purchase the property. However, it was under no obligation to do so. While it refused to buy back the property, it offered the resident a 12-month sublet exception whereby she could legally sublet the property while in the process of selling it. This aimed to mitigate the costs the resident was incurring having moved out of the home.
Ultimately, the landlord acted in accordance with its policy in refusing to buy back the property. It also acted fairly in offering the sublet exception. As a result, a finding of no maladministration is made.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process, in which complaints are dealt with in 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code
The resident complained to the landlord on 4 August 2022 and the landlord notified the resident that it was unable to respond within timescales, the day before it was due on 18 August 2022. It explained that information was outstanding, namely feedback from its solicitor on the question of responsibility for the electrical equipment and repairs. It acted reasonably, and according to its policy and the Code, in notifying the resident of the extension, explaining the reason for the delay, and providing a new deadline, at 7 working days later.
However, the resident had been waiting for the landlord to seek legal clarity on this issue from April 2022. It had failed to follow up on this and had missed previous deadlines to provide the information. That this now led to a delay in its complaint response was unacceptable.
The landlord acknowledged its failing and reflected this in its offer of compensation at stage 1, which constituted a rebate of £92 in property management fees. If we conclude that half of this total (£46) was for the complaint handling delay, this is considered appropriate recompense.
I The landlord also delayed in its final response. It has not provided evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request or managed her expectations about the delay. It issued its response after 39 working days, which was outside of timescales outlined in its policy and the Code. This was unreasonable, especially given the delays already experienced by the resident. It acknowledged the delay and offered the resident further compensation. While it did not attribute a specific portion of compensation for this, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to conclude that £125 of the total offered was in recognition of complaint handling delays at stage 2.
Overall, the landlord offered £171 for complaint handling delays across both stages, in recognition of the frustration caused to the resident, and according to its compensation policy. The amount is also in in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and is considered to provide reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was:
1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns following the electrical fire.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to buy back the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of:
1. Concerns raised by the resident about fire safety.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident £736.40 compensation for failings in its response to the electrical fire. This is comprised of:
  1. £486.40 as previously offered to the resident as a reimbursement (£440.40 for the cost of the repairs, and £42 in management fees for its delays in updating her).
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings.

If the £486.40 previously offered to the resident during the complaints process has already been paid, it can be deducted from this total.

Write a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report and share a copy with this Service, to evidence that it has done so.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. It has not already done so, pay the resident the £546 compensation previously offered (comprised of £375 for distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her fire safety concerns, and £171 for complaint handling delays). The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis that this sum is paid, as it recognised service failings which required remedy.
2. Review this Service’s Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds, from 2020, and the more recently published Insight report on shared ownership. It should consider the recommendations, with specific reference to establishing clarity on the terms of the lease from the offset of the tenancy.
3. Provide regular updates to residents and stakeholders with key contact information, including its out–of–hours repairs service.
4. Review the systems it has in place to ensure meaningful handovers between incoming and outgoing PMOs, to prevent drift and ensure consistency in service.
5. If it does not already do so, shares key fire safety information with its residents to offer assurance that the systems it has in place are adequate and to provide transparency about the monitoring and servicing of its equipment.