The Guinness Partnership Limited (202119405)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119405

Guinness Housing Association Limited

28 July 2023

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report regarding a section 20 notice for upgrades to the apartment building and the reported impact on the sale of the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The resident’s request for reimbursement of a reduction in the sale price.
Paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The purchase price agreed by each party and monies due to or by each party formed part of a contract for the sale of the property. Any dispute around this would be more appropriately considered by the courts as they have the expertise and process to consider contractual disputes. For these reasons, this aspect of the resident’s complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as it would be more appropriately considered by the District Valuer and/or the courts. However, this Service can consider the landlord’s overall handling and management of the sales process and this investigation has focussed on this element of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a leaseholder of the landlord at the time the complaint was made to the landlord. The lease commenced on 3 July 2004. The property is a 7th floor flat in a purpose built block.
Under the terms of the lease the resident is required to:
1. Pay the rent and the “part of the costs incurred or to be incurred by the landlord in carrying out repairs to the demised property and to the remainder of the building” and to pay the service charges and “part of the costs of insuring against risks involving such repairs”.
2. To “permit the landlord and its lessees of any adjoining property and their respective surveyors, agents and workmen at all reasonable times to enter”. This is “for the purpose of repairing any such adjoining property” including “repairing, maintaining, re-building, cleansing, painting, renewing lighting and keeping in order and condition all sewers, drains, pipes, eaves, gutters, downspouts, passageways, accesses, party walls, fences, structures”. The resident is required to allow access for the “maintaining, repairing and testing drainage, gas and water pipes, electric or other wires”.
Under the terms of the lease the landlord is required to:
1. “Paint the structure and exterior of the demised property and the main building”.
2. “To insure the demised property and also to insure the main building”.
The landlord’s compensation policy details its approach to offering compensation. This covers:
1. “Compensation for service failure” in recognition of “loss or damage and for distress and inconvenience caused when something has gone wrong, and Guinness is at fault”.
2. “Compensation rights included in the tenancy agreement” including a “right to repair scheme” which “mirrors the provision in the Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994”, “compensation for improvements” up the value of £3000 which “mirrors the provisions set out in the Secure Tenants of Local Authorities (Compensation for Improvements) Regulations 1994”, compensation for “breaches of data protection law” and “goodwill gesture”.
3. Compensation payments are broken down as follows:
  1. “Up to £250 – the issue was resolved within a reasonable time which resulted in minor inconvenience having some impact on the customer or the household”.
  2. “£250 – £700 – the issue took a long time to resolve which resulted in moderate inconvenience having a demonstrable impact on the customer or the household”.
  3. “£700+ – the issue took a long time to resolve and resulted in significant inconvenience having significant impact on the customer or the household which is likely to cause longer-term distress”.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within two working days. It will respond at stage one within ten working days and will respond at stage two within 20 working days. At both complaint stages if “there is a good reason, we may take longer than this” “but it will not exceed a further ten working days”. The landlord updated its complaints policy in 2022, however, this postdated the resident’s complaint and the earlier policy has been considered as part of this investigation.
The landlord’s home ownership Section 20 consultation procedure sets out the landlord’s approach to its consultation requirements under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (as amended) 1985. It details that dependent on whether “public notice is required” and if a “short process” is allowed, it will:
1. Issue a stage one letter “on affected leaseholders” giving “32 days’ notice”. An extra two days “for postage”. It should “capture all customer observations” and “reply to each observation individually within 21 days of receipt”.
2. A “stage two letter” will be served on “all affected leaseholders and tenants”.
The landlord’s service charge policy sets out how the landlord will “set, review and manage service charges on social rented, leasehold and shared ownership properties”. It details:
1. That the costs covered by the service charges “include, but are not restricted to: the maintenance of communal areas e.g. windows and gardens; the cost of facilities in communal areas e.g. lifts and door entry systems; and fees for professional services such as management fees, account audits or certification”.
2. It “may also include an amount to be placed in a sinking fund to contribute to the cost of future major works, where the tenancy agreement or lease requires us to do so”.
3. It will review the service charges “in most cases, this will be annually, at the start of each financial year”.
4. All homeowners “are charged variable service charges”. Charges are set based on “our best assessment of expected costs”. Any “refunds for overpayments and requests to make good underpayments will be made in line with the terms of the lease”.
5. It will “consult tenants and homeowners on service charges whenever the anticipated cost of service chargeable works or services meets the cost threshold set by the government” in compliance with Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended).
The landlord consulted the residents within the block containing the resident’s property in 2017 in connection with a planned maintenance framework for a long-term agreement as required under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult leaseholders who are required to contribute costs for “any qualifying works or qualifying long-term agreement”. Qualifying works are those that are over a certain threshold. Within its “notice of proposal to enter into qualifying long term agreements under Schedule 2 of the Service Charges (Consultation Requirements) (England) Regulations 2003 dated 22 August 2018 it advised that where a “service charge contribution to the work is £250 or more, we will consult with you again and in more detail”. This later letter advised of the landlord’s proposed contractors to allow written observations to be made in line with Section 20.
The landlord provided a copy of a Section 20 consultation letter dated 2 October 2019 which it states was sent to all residents within the block containing the resident’s property, including the resident. This was for works under the long term agreement from the previous consultation carried out in 2018 above. Work was deemed necessary to “maintain the integrity of the building as well as to alleviate penetrating damp“. The work was scheduled to commence 21 and 22 November 2019. An estimate was provided of £3,184.39 inclusive of VAT per property. The planned works were delayed due to the covid-19 restrictions and recommenced on 22 June 2020. This information is provided as background to the resident’s complaint raised on 21 May 2021. For the purpose of this investigation in line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the period six months prior to the resident’s complaint is considered. Paragraph 42(c) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. In this report, reference is made to a Leasehold Property Enquiries (LPE1) form. An LPE1 form is used to collect information held by a landlord and/or managing agent on behalf of buyers.

Summary of events

The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 17 January 2021 requesting a LPE1 form for the resident’s property which was in the process of a sale. The landlord wrote back to the resident’s solicitor on 29 January 2021 to confirm a fee for the provision of the LPE1 form and to advise of a “ten working days” turnaround on “receipt of payment of our fees”.
The resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord on 25 February 2021 to request confirmation of payment of the required fee that it had made on 16 February 2021. The landlord’s internal email of 3 March 2021 detailed that the landlord had received the payment.
The resident chased up a response from the landlord for the LPE1 form on 3 March 2021. The landlord provided the LPE1 form to the resident’s solicitor on 5 March 2021.
In the LPE1 form the landlord’s responses to questions regarding Section 20 consultations are shown below:
1. “Within the next two years, are any Section 20 works proposed to the property?”: “N/A”.
2. A request for “copies of any notices served on the lessees under Section 20 in respect of any proposed works or any works which have not yet been paid for”: “N/A”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 March 2021 to advise that she had spoken with her solicitor who had advised her that the section regarding Section 20 notices “was left blank. The resident stated that the buyer’s solicitor informed her solicitor that a “Section 20 notice for £3000 has been issued to me”. The resident disputed that she had received “such notice”.
The landlord emailed internally on 8 March 2021 to ask if a Section 20 “is to happen”. It detailed that “on the tracker they have been delayed with no Section 20 sent out, but the seller has emailed in saying that the buyers solicitors have said that one has which is going to cost £3000”. It stated that it was unable to “find that this information was ever sent” and asked for clarification.
The resident’s solicitor emailed the landlord on 12 March 2021 querying whether any “additional service charge costs will be requested from the tenants for previous works carried out or whether those previous works were covered under the sinking fund and no additional costs will be borne by the tenants save the service charge amount”. The landlord emailed internally on 17 March 2021 to request information in order to answer the solicitor’s query regarding whether the sinking fund would be used or whether this would be reflected in a future service charge.
The resident emailed her solicitor on 15 March 2021 to advise that she had spoken to the landlord’s home owners legal services team and that the landlord had advised that the “management pack shows there is no Section 20 on the property, so there will not be any charges for works carried out before the new leaseholder bought the apartment”.
The landlord emailed internally on 17 March 2021 regarding the resident’s solicitor’s email of 12 March 2021 to ask about the Section 20 works. It detailed that “the works have not completed”. It asked for further information so it could then respond back to the solicitor.
The resident emailed her solicitor on 18 March 2021 as she had received an email from the estate agent to say that the “buyer won’t proceed until she has confirmation from the management company that no costs will be transferred to her for works they have done/are being done at the property”. The resident’s solicitor emailed back on 18 March 2021 to confirm that the buyer’s solicitor wished the position to be confirmed “in writing for evidence”. The resident emailed her solicitor again on the same day to advise that the “management pack shows there are no Section 20 notices. There are no charges to pay”. She expressed concern as her own sale was delayed as the buyer wanted confirmation that was no service charge in relation to any Section 20 notice. The resident advised that “this is seriously making me ill with worry”.
The landlord emailed the resident’s solicitor on 1 April 2021 to advise that the “works have not yet completed”. It was therefore unable to “confirm the specific cost of the works nor confirm if there will be additional costs incurred, until the works have been completed”. At this point “an invoice will be sent” to the landlord who would review “the amount in the sinking fund to determine if the funds are sufficient to cover the costs of the works”. If the “funds are insufficient the rent and service charge team will contact the leaseholders and confirm how much each leaseholder will equally contribute for the cost of the works”.
The resident emailed her solicitor on 20 April 2021 to ask if the landlord had ticked “no on the LPE1 in response to the question about Section 20 notices”. The resident’s solicitor emailed back the same day with a copy of the LPE1 replies.
The resident made her stage one complaint on 21 May 2021 by phone. The landlord logged the detail of the complaint describing:
1. That the resident had left the property but was still “receiving emails from us saying she has not settled the balance on the account”. She had phoned and “made a payment of £3.55 to settle the account but she has since received more emails which has irritated the customer”.
2. The resident wished to complain about the “selling process of her house”. She had been advised “far down the line” that the property had a Section 20 notice against it “meaning there was a £3,000 charge against the property unsettled”. She stated then “when she called Guinness we apparently stated this was not the case but she had to reduce the property sale by £3,000 to get the move to go through as she could not prove the buyers otherwise”. She wished to be “reimbursed and an apology for the accounts situation”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 21 May 2021. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether the complaint was acknowledged during the phone call.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 27 May 2021 to further acknowledge the resident’s complaint and to advise that due to the “impacts of covid-19 it may take us a little longer than the usual timescales provided to handle your case”. It would “aim to resolve your case within 20 working days”.
The landlord’s internal complaint records of 27 May 2021 indicate that the landlord had been advised by the resident that “she had to drop the price in order to make the same”. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether this was a record of a phone call with the resident.
An internal email of 10 June 2021 concerning the resident’s account advised of a credit of £3.55 present when the account closed. However, as completion happened at the end of the month the direct debit had been taken for the beginning of May. A refund had been issued which should have been for “£117.25” but was made for £120.80 meaning the balance “went into arrears of £3.55 and so the leaseholder needed to pay that back”. It detailed that the resident “is mistaken about this matter”. It advised of the Section 20 notice of October 2019 that had been sent to all leaseholders. The resident “claims that she did not receive the letter”. It detailed that the charge of £3,184.39 was “an estimated cost” and that it was “typical that the buyer and seller (through their solicitors) will negotiate how they will pay for the works that are quoted”. It believed that “as part of the negotiations she paid the buyer £3,000 in light of the S20 notice, but this is a private arrangement between her and the buyer – Guinness has no part in why she paid it”.
The landlord’s records detail a phone call made by the resident on 23 June 2021 that detailed that the resident had not “heard anything regarding the complaint raised since 27 May”. It was now “23 working days”.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 23 June 2021. In this it detailed:
1. It summarised the resident’s complaint concerning a “balance” on her account that “has not been settled”. The resident had spoken to the landlord’s customer accounts team on 19 May “to resolve the issue”. The resident had to “reduce the price by £3000” of the property during the sale process. She had been “advised by the buyer’s solicitor the property had a Section 20 notice”.
2. It stated that the resident had been sent a “Section 20 consultation letter” that had been sent to all leaseholders. It provided an extract from the letter:
  1. “the works to be carried out under the agreement are as follows: external decoration, full building safety, concrete repairs to ring beams, pointing brickwork and sealing the windows”. The works described were to “maintain the integrity of the building as well as to eliminate penetrating damp”. An estimate of £3,184.39 inclusive of vat was given.
3. It advised that the resident’s decision to reduce the price was a “private decision you made with the buyers and Guinness was not involved with this”.
4. It apologised for the delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and offered £25 “by way of apology”.
The landlord’s records detail a stage two complaints form that states the stage one complaint was closed on 23 June 2021. It does not confirm the date of the escalation and whether this was on 23 June 2021. It details the reason for the escalation to stage two is that the resident “wasn’t happy with the outcome of the investigation, customer has stated she is owed a refund of £3,000 which is the amount she reduced her property by in order to complete sale”. It confirmed that the completion date of the sale was 29 April 2021.
The resident phoned the landlord on 18 August 2021 to request a call back. The landlord’s records detail that the resident had advised that “she escalated a complaint to stage two on 23 June 2021 and still hasn’t heard back”. The landlord phoned the resident on 24 August 2021. Its records detail the complaint concerning the reduction in the sale price and “the fact she had to call over and over again and she was told there was no Section 20 notice”. The outcome to the complaint was that the resident “wants £3000 compensation as she had to reduce her sale price”.
The landlord phoned the resident on 22 September 2021 to advise of a delay in stage two responses being responded to and “apologised for this”. The landlord’s records detail that she would “give it until the end of next week”.
The resident phoned the landlord on 10 and 12 November 2021 to chase up the stage two response. The landlord’s records detail that the “customer is not happy and would like to get a response to this asap”. The landlord’s records detail that it had “acknowledged the stage two on 12 November 2021 and apologised for the delay”.
The landlord’s records detail on 15 November 2021 that it “acknowledged with customer and apologised for the delays” in the complaint response. The record does not state whether this was by email, letter or phone call.
The landlord’s internal emails of 19 November 2021 detail that it was liaising with its homeowner services and “eventually got confirmation” that the seller would have received the Section 20 notice regarding the works dated October 2019. It advised that “this was sent to the seller direct on 6 April 2021”. It had updated the resident’s solicitor “notifying them that work has not been completed and how payment would work”. The document that was attached was dated 2 October 2019 under Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (as amended). This gave a description of the works to be undertaken and the estimated cost of £3,184.39 inclusive of vat. The consultation period ended on 30 October 2019. It detailed that “it is the responsibility of a seller and/or buyer to consider that and (if they wish to) enter into a private retention agreement between them. It would have nothing to do with Guinness”.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 19 November 2021. In this it detailed:
1. The resident had “already been made aware of this”, i.e. the Section 20 notice “about communal repairs and upgrades”. The landlord’s customer accounts team had “refunded you £120.80 of service charges”. It had apologised for the “inconvenience caused and offered £25 by way of an apology” at stage one of the complaints process.
2. It advised that a letter had been sent in October 2019 that it states “was the Section 20 notice”. In this letter the landlord advised that the resident was made aware of the estimated costs of “external decoration, full building safety, concrete repairs to ring beams, pointing brickwork and sealing the windows”. It advised that the letter was sent to all residents and confirmation of the “expected” cost to be £3,184.39.
3. During the sales process, it had provided a “management pack” to the resident’s solicitor who then queried the amount. The landlord had updated the solicitor on 1 April 2021 “that the work has not yet been completed”. It advised that the reduction in price as “your buyer would have to cover it when they move in (and works are done) was between your solicitor and your buyer’s solicitor”. The charge “was always going to be attributed back to the service charge”. If the resident had not wished to pay for this she would have needed to “dispute it with your solicitor at the time of the sale”.
4. It advised that it was up to the “buyer to consider this before agreeing to any figures”. The landlord would not get involved in this. It advised that the resident’s complaint was best “directed at your solicitors as they act on your behalf”.
5. In respect of the complaint relating to the customer accounts team, it understand that this was resolved in May 2021 and “there have been no further issues”.
6. It was “satisfied that you were given the correct information at the first stage and your complaint will remain as not upheld”.
7. It increased the compensation offered due to “complaint handling delays” to £50.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 21 November 2021. The resident advised this Service that she had been “forced to reduce the sale price of the property” by £3000 because of their errors”. She advised that her buyer “was told there was a £3,000 charge related to a Section 20 notice for upgrades to the apartment building”. She advised that she had phoned the landlord on two occasions and “both times was told there wasn’t any such notice”. She advised that she had “almost lost my purchase as the sellers were getting tired of the delays”. She stated that at the start of April the landlord “told the buyer’s solicitor there was in fact a notice that had been sent out in October 2019”. She states that she did not receive the notice. She stated that in response to the stage two complaint that the landlord advised her that “the buyer won’t have to pay up front” and that “the charge will be spread across future service charges”. She stated that “if they had told us that in the first place I wouldn’t have had to reduce the cost”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report regarding a section 20 notice for upgrades to the apartment building and the reported impact on the sale of the property

In respect of the initial request made by the resident’s solicitor for the LPE1 form, there was a delay of three working days outside of the landlord’s stated ten working day timescale after receipt of payment for the landlord to provide the necessary information. The solicitor advised in its email of 25 February 2021 that the payment had been made on 16 February 2021. It would have therefore been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident’s solicitor of any updated timeframe to provide a response.
The landlord’s completed LPE1 form gave no confirmation of any Section 20 works that were proposed within the next two years or in respect of any “proposed works or any works which have not yet been paid for”. Each question on the form was answered by the landlord “n/a”. However, given that the major works being undertaken were yet to be completed and billed through service charges the information provided to the resident’s solicitor was not correct. Its internal emails evidence that the information was not readily available which is concerning and had to be sought out concerning whether a Section 20 notice had been served. Its internal email of 8 March 2021 indicated that no S20 notice had been sent out. It stated that it was unable to “find that this information was ever sent” and asked for clarification indicating that the landlord was unsure whether a Section 20 was sent. This was consistent with the resident’s report of being informed by the landlord during a phone call on 15 March 2021 that there was no S20 notice connected to the property.
The landlord subsequently confirmed in its email of 1 April 2021 to the resident’s solicitor the correct position. This was nearing the end of the sales process as the completion date was 29 April 2021. The purpose of the LPE1 form is to establish whether there are any problems that exist or costs that may be incurred with the property in the near future. It is therefore imperative that the landlord provides accurate answers, otherwise the sale may be delayed. The landlord needed to fully check its records to ensure that the information provided on the form was accurate from the start which would have negated the need for the solicitor to raise further queries adding unnecessary delay to the property sales process. Where a resident is involved in a chain, the distress and inconvenience may be heightened.
It is important that the landlord ensures that its record keeping is sufficiently robust. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the property, the works that have been carried out and works to be carried out, enabling it to accurately respond to residents. This Service has recently published a Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). This highlights the importance of good knowledge and information management that allows a landlord to keep both a building and people safe, now and in the future as a tool to manage buildings. It is recommended that the landlord reviews the recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
It is acknowledged that a property sales process is a matter of negotiation between a vendor and a buyer and their respective solicitors to agree a sale price. However, It is widely recognised that the process of selling and buying a property is one of the most stressful life events and the confusion regarding the Section 20 notice meant additional time, trouble and inconvenience for the resident in obtaining the correct position that she described was making her “ill with worry”. The resident was understandably worried about the property she wished to buy and the impact any delay would have on this to avoid the purchase falling through. This came at a time when the solicitors of the resident and the buyer were negotiating the price of the property which the landlord was aware of. It was therefore important that the landlord provide accurate information about possible pending service charges as these costs may affect the sale.
The sale price itself is a matter for the legal representatives of the respective parties to agree, and the landlord has no obligation to reimburse notional losses. With regard to the errors in the LPE1 form, it is not disputed that the structural/external decoration works were a matter that the leaseholder of the property would have to pay. It was the resident’s decision to in effect cover these costs.
In the resident’s referral to this Service she stated that the landlord had said that the cost of the building work would be spread over a period of time, rather than the new resident having to pay up front. No record has been seen that the landlord agreed this approach so it is not possible to confirm the agreement. If there was evidence that the resident was made aware of this at an earlier point, it would not be possible to confirm that the buyer would have been willing to pay the extra £3,000 for the property.
The landlord states that it provided a copy of the Section 20 notice in 2019 that gave an estimated cost for major works to all residents within the block including the resident. The resident disputed receipt of this notice. The evidence provided is insufficient to confirm either version or to determine with certainty that this was sent by the landlord. As such this Service is unable to draw conclusions. The landlord may wish to consider how such notices are sent and whether a recorded delivery would be more appropriate.
In summary, there was some delay in the provision of the LPE1 form, and further queries arising from this. The landlord provided incorrect information on the form that meant that further clarification needed to be sought by the resident and her solicitor. This caused delay in the sales process as the correct information was not provided until near the end of the process. The landlord’s record keeping was not sufficiently robust so that it could easily check the status of the Section 20 notice that it states had been served in 2019 to the resident. The landlord’s failings caused the resident additional time, trouble and inconvenience as well as distress during the property sale process. These failings amount to a service failure for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint of 21 May 2021. The landlord’s records were not clear whether this was acknowledged at the time by phone call as mentioned. It sent a further acknowledgement on 27 May 2021 advising of the impact of coronavirus on its complaint response timescales giving a twenty working day timescale for a response.
The stage one response was sent on 23 June 2021 which was 22 working days after the resident’s stage one complaint was made. Whilst covid-19 undoubtedly impacted the ability of landlords to provide services, at the time the resident’s complaint was made there were no lockdowns in place and non-essential services had reopened 12 April 2021. It is unclear therefore, why the landlord was delaying its complaint responses and the timescale for a response was over and above the timescale it suggested would be met. No record has been seen of any interim complaints policy that would have set out the landlord’s interim position in response to covid-19. It would have been reasonable to have such a policy in place as this would have helped manage the resident’s expectations.
Whilst the landlord’s stage one response acknowledged the delay in its response by offering £25 compensation, it did not acknowledge that the responses given on the LPE1 form were incorrect or offer any apology for the error made which would have been appropriate under the circumstances. It would have been reasonable to do this and to consider a remedy in line with its compensation policy.
The landlord confirmed to this Service that the resident’s escalation request to stage two made on 24 June 2021 was made by phone call. This is not stated on the landlord’s complaint records. The records detail that a call was made by the resident on this date to chase up a response to her complaint as she stated it had been 23 working days since she had made the complaint.
The landlord’s record of phone call from the resident of 19 August 2021 suggests the resident stated that the escalation request was made on 23 June 2021. The landlord’s stage two complaint escalation form that was completed at the time of the escalation detailed that its stage one complaint was closed on 23 June 2023 and gives the reason for an escalation to stage two made by the resident. The correct date for the escalation request is therefore unclear. The landlord’s records were therefore insufficient to provide accurate information concerning the escalation to stage two indicating again that there were some record keeping issues.
The resident had to chase up the landlord again for a stage two response on 10 November 2021 as she had not heard anything from the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 15 November 2021 and sent its stage two response on 19 November 2021 which was 106 working days after the resident requested the escalation to stage two. This was an unreasonable delay and considerably outside of the landlord’s complaints policy timescale for an acknowledgement and stage two response which should have been made within 20 working days. No record has been seen that the reason for any delay and an expected timescale for a response was provided to the resident at an earlier point to help manage her expectations. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain that the response was delayed and the reasons for this. The landlord should review its complaints process and practice using the Ombudsman’s Code self-assessment toolkit and update its policy where necessary.
In summary, there was a delay at stage one of the landlord’s complaints process. It failed to acknowledge the error made in respect of the Section 20 notice in its stage one response or provide any apology for this. It did not consider any remedy in line with its compensation policy above for the error that had been made. Its record keeping was unclear in respect of how the resident’s complaint escalation was made. The landlord unreasonably delayed its stage two acknowledgement and its stage two response and there is no record seen that it managed the resident’s expectations with regard to the reason for any delay. Whilst it offered further compensation for the delay, this does not, in the opinion of this Service, adequately address the service failings identified in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling for this case. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report regarding a section 20 notice for upgrades to the apartment building and the reported impact on the sale of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord delayed the response to the resident’s solicitor during the sales process in respect of the provision of the LPE1 form. The landlord provided incorrect information on the LPE1 form that it later had to correct in respect of the Section 20 notice and works that were ongoing within the block at the time of the sale of the resident’s property. The correct information was not provided until near the end of the sales process. This caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble for the resident in progressing the sale as well as distress during the sales process. The landlord’s record keeping was insufficiently robust to allow it to provide timely responses to the queries raised.
The landlord delayed its responses at stage one of the complaints process. Its response at both complaint stages did not acknowledge the error made on the LPE1 form in respect of the Section 20 notice that had been served. No apology was made for this, nor consideration of any remedy in line with its compensation policy above. No record has been seen that the landlord updated the resident with reasons for the delay in its responses to help manage her expectations. The acknowledgement and response at stage two was unreasonably delayed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a Director level or above. A copy should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £200 compensation for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report regarding a section 20 notice for upgrades to the apartment building and the reported impact on the sale of the property.
3. Pay the resident £350 compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to initiate and complete its revised self-assessment of its complaints policy and procedure updating its self-assessment undertaken in September 2022, using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section four – complaint handling principles in respect of its communication with residents and Section five – complaint stages and response timeframes.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its approach to the provision of Section 20 notices to ensure that it has adequate records to confirm the receipt of notices by its residents. The review should be undertaken within six weeks of the date of this report.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) within twelve weeks of the date of this report to improve its record keeping practices.