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

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202328355)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328355

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

17 June 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 handling of the resident’s concerns regarding notice of work to his building, and related charges.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted terraced house. The landlord is a housing association.
  2. For context, the resident was a tenant of the landlord at the time the section 20 notice of the proposed work was sent to the resident’s neighbour (above). It was unclear exactly when, but the resident applied to buy the property from the landlord under the Right-to-Buy scheme. The landlord sent a section 125 offer notice dated 27 February 2023 to the resident. The resident became a leaseholder in August 2023.
  3. Following the section 125 letter, there was no evidence of contact between parties until the resident called the landlord to complain on 14 August 2023. He said:
    1. He was unhappy it was asking for £5,000 for work it believed was needed.
    2. He worked night shifts so any work would severely impact him.
    3. He wanted the work to be put on hold.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 25 August 2023. It said:
    1. The notice of intention to complete major work to the property was sent in October 2022.
    2. As he was a tenant at the time, he would not have received the notice letter.
    3. He was notified of the major work plans in the section 125 offer letter.
    4. The work required was to the roof, and costs were estimated to be £3,224.24.
    5. It was unable to put the work on hold as planned work was for essential maintenance to protect the structure and fabric of the building.
    6. It appreciated the work may cause disruption. However, it apologised in advance and said it would only be for a short period.
  5. The resident responded on 12 September 2023 and said:
    1. While he agreed the roof needed doing, pointing did not.
    2. He wanted to know the full completed costs.
  6. Scaffolding was assembled around 14 September 2023. The landlord emailed the resident 6 days later and said:
    1. It had given notice of the work.
    2. It apologised as a letter was sent in October 2022 which said pointing was required. However, an amended letter had been sent which said the work was for the roof only.
    3. He was notified of the work in the section 125 offer document, and he would remain liable for charges.

The resident escalated the complaint the same day and sent another email the following day. He said the landlord should know the total cost before the work commenced.

  1. The work was completed on 6 October 2023. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 17 October 2023. It said:
    1. Leaseholders are notified of major work through the consultation process. In this case, the work was listed on the section 125 notice.
    2. It had no record on its system the resident was unhappy with the proposed work.
    3. The roof work and minor work to the exterior walls was completed.
    4. It could take several months before it received the final cost of the work from its contractors. This was because the work was carried out as part of a planned programme. Which was to reduce costs for both leaseholders and the landlord.
    5. The resident would be sent a final bill and breakdown of the work carried out and exact costs incurred.
    6. It apologised for any disturbance caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident said he worked shift patterns and “slept during the day at least 2 weeks a month.” He also said the disturbance of the work could have “a mental impact” on him. We do not doubt these comments and empathise with his situation. But we also cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and any impact on his health. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers his health was affected by any action or failure by the landlord.
  2. While we have considered the lease terms as part of our assessment of the complaint, it is not within our remit to make a legally binding decision on the correct interpretation of those terms. This can only be done via the courts, in the form of the First Tier Tribunal. This also applies to any concerns the resident may have around whether: the lease terms are fair; the landlord followed the correct process regarding the section 20 notice; he is liable to pay for major works or other service charge items under the lease; the level of service charge is reasonable. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, he should obtain independent legal advice (either from a solicitor or advice agency such as the Leasehold Advisory Service) and consider making a claim through the courts.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding notice of work to his building, and related charges.

  1. The resident’s lease agreement says:
    1. The landlord will maintain, repair and replace the retained parts. The retained parts are defined in the lease and include “the main structure of the building which include the roof and roof structures.”  
    2. The resident must “pay to the landlord… the service charges as the landlord shall reasonably require.”
  2. The landlord said it sent its notice of intention for major improvement works in October 2022. It was unclear whether the resident was living at the property at the time, and if he was, whether the landlord mentioned the proposed work to him. However, there was no obligation for it to do so at that point.
  3. The resident was given notice of the proposed work to the property in the section 125 notice dated 27 February 2023. The notice provided details in relation to major work that was required at the property and said:
    1. “In respect of flats, a service charge will be made in respect of costs incurred… in making good structural defects.
    2. Structural defects and itemised works of repair included proposed work to re-roof the property with an estimated cost to the resident of £3,800.
    3. In the sale of flats, it is the landlord’s obligation to further discuss details of any major works/improvements with the resident.
    4. Should the resident wish to proceed with the sale, to phone for an appointment.”

The section 125 notice made clear the landlord intended to carry out work to the property roof. There was no evidence to suggest the resident phoned to discuss concerns regarding the work in the following 6 months before he complained. Following the complaint, the landlord responded promptly and explained its position regarding the work, which was reasonable.

  1. The resident said he would not be there when work was due to start on 21 August 2023. The evidence suggests the scaffolding was assembled on or around the 14 September 2023 while he was on holiday. The landlord emailed on 20 September 2023 and said:
    1. It noted that letters and several cards were posted to the resident in relation to the work.
    2. Its contractors had also text prior to the scaffolding being assembled.
    3. Work would commence on 18 September 2023, however this depended on the weather.
    4. Work should be completed around 29 September 2023.

It was unclear exactly when the resident returned from holiday, or if he was impacted by the work due to his shifts. However, the landlord was reasonable and managed the resident’s expectations around the timescales for the work. The work was completed on 6 October 2023, a week later than planned.

  1. The landlord’s obligation to repair the roof is outlined in the lease agreement. The resident also agreed work to the roof was required. Overall, the landlord responded to the resident promptly. It explained its position regarding the work and associated costs, which was reasonable. There was no evidence to suggest the resident was treated unfavourably or that he was significantly impacted by the issues raised. There was, therefore, no maladministration by the landlord.

Determination

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns regarding notice of work to his building, and related charges.