One Housing Group Limited (202001423)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202001423

One Housing Group Limited

8 January 2021

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 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 leaseholder 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 leaseholder’s concerns regarding its communication
2. Response to the leaseholder’s concerns regarding its management of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
3. Response to a pest infestation
4. Response to the leaseholder’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas
5. Handling of repairs to the communal heating and hot water system
6. Response to the leaseholder’s concerns regarding the condition of the lifts
7. Delay in completing cyclical redecorations
8. Communication with the leaseholder regarding cladding

Background and summary of events

Background

The complainant is the leaseholder of the property (the property) which the complaint concerns.
The property is a flat situated in a purpose-built block (the building).
The landlord is the freeholder of the block.

Summary of events

On 26 February 2020 the leaseholder wrote to the landlord to register a complaint regarding several leasehold issues. The leaseholder noted that a number of the issues dated back to at least 2016. In summary the leaseholder said:
1. Communication
  1. The allocated Homeownership Advisor (the HA) for the building was unreachable and unresponsive. The leaseholder stated that the HA did not answer their phone and failed to respond to written correspondence in a timely manner. The leaseholder said that there was therefore a “lack of responsibility and accountability”.
  2. The allocated HA changed every six months thus not providing any consistency.
2. Security and ASB
  1. The number of ASB incidents in the building had increased recently. The leaseholder explained that the ASB included vandalism, smoking, drugs, parties including by non-leaseholders who were able to access the building. The leaseholder stated that, despite reporting the ASB to the landlord, it had failed to take action. The leaseholder noted that there was CCTV in the building however the landlord said that it was either not in use or not recording.
  1. Rough sleepers were accessing the refuse store, to find food and to sleep, as the door was faulty. The leaseholder noted that residents had reported the fault to the landlord on many occasions however the repair was outstanding.
3. Pests
  1. Residents had reported mice in the building. The leaseholder said that the landlord must arrange pest control to attend.
4. Cleaning
  1. The standard of cleanliness in the building had “fallen to a low”. The leaseholder said that residents “regularly [found] rubbish everywhere” and the terrace had not been cleaned. The leaseholder noted that the standard had dropped since cleaner X had left.
  1. Plants in the communal areas were “half dead” and needed to be addressed.
  2. Despite residents requesting a glass recycling bin the landlord had not followed up on this action.
5. Communal hot water and heating system (the system)
  1. The system was unsatisfactory as it regularly developed faults which resulted in periods of no hot water and heating. The leaseholder explained that currently he had no hot water and heating in the property since 22 February 2020 and the landlord’s response to restore the system had been unsatisfactory, including poor communication.
  1. The landlord had failed to find a permanent fix to permanently fix the system.
  2. The landlord had failed to pursue the developer of the building under the NHBC warranty to replace the system.
6. Lifts
  1. The lifts in the building were regularly out of order. The leaseholder stated that “over time the fixing time had become worse and worse”.
  1. Recently both lifts in the building were out of service “for a few days” and in the past one lift had been out of service for a period of 2 weeks.
7. Cyclical redecorations
  1. Cyclical redecoration was agreed two years ago however had been “pushed back”.
8. Cladding
  1. The landlord’s communication regarding cladding on the building had been unsatisfactory, including by failing to provide updates in a timely manner. The leaseholder noted recent correspondence from the landlord on 21 February 2020 however stated that it provided little comfort that it was “on top of the situation in hand”.
  1. The landlord had refused to meet with residents to discuss the cladding on the building.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord acknowledged the complaint confirming that it would provide a response within 15 working days. Within its correspondence the landlord noted that it had provided “a number of updates to residents” in relation to the system and loss of hot water and heating.
On 18 March 2020 the landlord provided its stage one response. In summary the landlord said:
1. Communication
  1. It was sorry to learn of the leaseholder’s experience when trying to reach its officers.
  2. It had recently made changes to the way it manages its properties and communicated with its customers. The landlord explained that it had created one point of contact to enable an enquiry to be addressed promptly and by the correct team.
  3. It had created a property management team to undertake visits and carry out inspections of the buildings it owns and manages. The landlord confirmed that the team would raise any repairs identified.
2. Security and ASB
  1. It was committed to tackling ASB and it had a range of “civil powers and tools” available to it to resolve and prevent ASB. The landlord noted however that its “power to deal with serious crime directly [was] limited”. The landlord confirmed that residents should therefore report crime, including drugs, directly to the police. The landlord explained that it may take action against its residents and non-residents following police intervention and evidence of criminal behaviour.
  1. Rough sleeping was an issue up and down the country. The landlord explained that it was working closely with the local authority in relation to rough sleeping and it passed on any reports it received to its outreach team. The landlord confirmed that members of the public may report rough sleepers via Streetlink.
  2. It met with the Safer Neighbourhood Team on 2 March 2020 who advised that it had not received any recent ASB reports by residents.
  3. Its internal database documented that there had been no reports of ASB by residents since November 2019.
  4. The leaseholder should report ASB to its ASB team. The landlord provided contact details for the team.
  5. It would write to all residents to remind them of their responsibilities in relation to ASB and breaches of tenancy, including how to report ASB.
  6. It would undertake an environmental visual audit of the building to address whether there were any estate improvements it could make in relation to ASB prevention and security.
  7. It apologised that a repair had not been undertaken to fix the door on the refuse store. The landlord confirmed that it would ensure that any repairs to secure the property were undertaken.
  8. CCTV images were only released to insurance companies and the police and not to residents directly. The landlord explained that this was due to GDPR. The landlord said that if residents had a timeframe of when an incident occurred, it could download images from the time and pass it onto the insurance company or police. The landlord confirmed that the CCTV was not monitored 24 hours a day.
3. Pests
  1. It was aware of the mice infestation issue. The landlord confirmed that baiting treatment was last undertaken on 5 March 2020.
  1. Following the leaseholder’s complaint it had asked its pest contractor to carry out a full survey of the internal and external communal areas to identify if any proofing works were required. The landlord confirmed that following the initial baiting programme the contractor would attend to bait the communal areas on a monthly basis until it was sure that the mice infestation had been resolved.
4. Cleaning
  1. It undertook regular inspections at the block. The landlord noted that residents were welcome to join, confirming the inspections were advertised on the communal notice board.
  1. Following the leaseholder’s complaint it inspected the block in order to be able to address the concerns which he had raised. The landlord confirmed that it also made enquiries with its cleaning contractor. The landlord noted that the contractor “had no knowledge of [cleaner X]”. The landlord confirmed that the inspection identified that the cleaning was “grade B – fair” meaning “no more litter or mess than is reasonably expected during a given day”. The landlord said that the block would “never been completely free of dirt, litter and detritus” and the amount shown during the inspection would not be regarded as having a “significant adverse effect”. The landlord confirmed however that “some minor attention to detail issues” were identified including damage to woodwork, deep clean of carpet required, jet wash of terrace area and plants requiring pruning and repositioning.
  2. The contractor undertook cleaning five days a week with a team of two.
  3. The local authority did not recycle glass. The landlord apologised that this information was not relayed.
5. The system
  1. It was aware that the block currently had no hot water and heating. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused to the leaseholder.
  1. The leaseholder was aware from the number of resident updates it had provided that the system had “suffered a catastrophic breakdown” and it had been unable to reinstate it. The landlord confirmed that it had “clearly set out” what action it was taking to repair the system and re-instate hot water and heating within the block, including a projected timescale for completion.
  2. Following completion of the works to remedy the system it would pay compensation to residents in line with its policy.
  3. It acknowledged that the leaseholder had previously reported issues with the system in the past.
  4. Once it was made aware of the system breakdown it was “responsive in [its] actions and response to residents”.
6. Lifts
  1. When lift break downs are reported it will check to see whether it was a “common occurrence”. The landlord confirmed that this involved checking back through its repair history and looking for any particular trends. The landlord explained that by doing this it gained a greater understanding of the condition of the lift and was able to liaise with its lift contractor in a more focused manner. The landlord confirmed that it uses “a common marker of six breakdowns or less per year to be acceptable, with an additional consideration regarding the severity of the repair”. The landlord said that a common failure theme might lead to the replacement of a component part rather than a repair.
  1. It had reviewed the repair history for both lifts in the block. The landlord confirmed that during the last 12 months only one of the lifts fell out of order a total of four times – door adjustment 20 March 2019, door fault 15 May 2019, control panel reset on 24 November 2019, and door fault 12 February 2020. The landlord noted that door faults were “commonly attributed to them being physically forced or held open”. The landlord confirmed that all the repairs were completed quickly and on the same day.
  2. At no time were both lifts out of service at the same time.
  3. The lifts were subject to routine insurance checks as well as a monthly service inspection.
  4. It was its assessment that the lifts in the block were “sufficiently young, and without an extraordinary high record of mechanical failure” and therefore did not require replacement. The landlord added that the lifts were also complaint with the LOLER (lifting operations and lifting equipment regulations).
7. Cyclical redecorations
  1. Once the repairs to the system had been completed it would complete the cyclical redecorations.
8. Cladding
  1. It had provided correspondence to the leaseholder regarding what it was doing to plan the remediation works at the block in relation to cladding. The landlord confirmed that it hoped to provide “a clear programme for remediation by July 2020”.
  1. It was pursuing the warranty provided and other parties involved with the construction of the block regarding the cost of remediation works.
  2. On 11 March 2020 the Government announced that it had committed a “1bn fund for the removal and replacement of non-ACM cladding”. The landlord confirmed that it would make an application when further details were announced.
The landlord concluded by confirming that it partially upheld the complaint as it had identified some gaps in some areas of its communication with residents. The landlord therefore apologised. The landlord said that if the leaseholder was not happy with its response he may refer the matter to the Ombudsman for consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment

It is noted that the leaseholder reports that aspects of his complaint, as detailed in the complaint definition, date back to 2016. It is not clear if the leaseholder raised his concerns as formal complaints with the landlord at the time they occurred. The resident has not contacted the Ombudsman, prior to this complaint, regarding any issues in relation to the property.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will 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.
Paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaint procedure.
As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the action taken to address those issues. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, this assessment will therefore only look at the landlord’s response to the leaseholder’s concerns from the start of 2019, which is approximately 12 months prior to his formal complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its communication

The Ombudsman notes that in making his complaint the leaseholder did not provide any specific examples of poor communication by the landlord and specifically the HA.
In responding to the leaseholder’s concerns the landlord provided a general response regarding its communication and management of the block, including explaining the changes it had made to improve its service delivery. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a reasonable approach, taking into consideration that the landlord did not have any specific examples to respond to.
Within its complaint response the landlord apologised that the leaseholder felt that its communication had been poor, and he had experienced problems when trying to reach the HA. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s apology was appropriate to demonstrate that it acknowledged the leaseholder’s experience and it was seeking to put things right.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding its management of ASB

In cases of ASB the role of the Ombudsman is to investigate how a landlord has handled any reports of ASB it has received and to determine if it has acted in accordance with its policies and procedures, taking into consideration the issues being reported.
The landlord defines ASB as:
1. Conduct that has caused, or is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to any person
2. Conduct capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to a person in relation to that person’s occupation of residential premises
3. Conduct capable of causing housing-related nuisance or annoyance to any person
Where a resident reports allegations which could fall within the landlord’s definition of ASB it is necessary for the landlord to respond to the allegations and to take action to resolve any issues it identified.
The landlord has provided its ASB record for the block. The Ombudsman notes that the leaseholder is not named as a reporter of ASB within the records.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence from the leaseholder that he reported ASB to the landlord prior to his complaint in February 2020 which the landlord did not acknowledge or respond to.
The Ombudsman can see that in November 2019 another resident reported ASB in relation to rough sleepers. The landlord responded by liaising with the police and inspecting the block. In addition the landlord wrote to all residents on 21 November 2019 regarding rough sleepers and the steps it was taking to ensure block security. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was a proportionate response.
Within its complaint response the landlord provided detailed information regarding its approach to ASB, including its responsibilities and powers, and set out how the leaseholder should report ASB; providing contact details for the relevant team. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate, taking into account that it had no record of any ASB complaints from the leaseholder himself.
Within its complaint response the landlord responded to the leaseholder’s concerns regarding CCTV by explaining that CCTV could be used as evidence to prove ASB where an incident occurred in its recording zone. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s explanation was appropriate to address the leaseholder’s concerns that the CCTV was not used.

The landlord’s response to a pest infestation

The landlord’s records evidence that prior to the leaseholder’s complaint and from January 2020 it was investigating and taking steps to take address mice in the building. This involved instructing a pest control contractor to undertake a series of baiting. This was appropriate.
Following the complaint the evidence shows that the landlord continued to work to resolve the pest control issue. The record from the pest control contractor dated October 2020 stated “all bait stations checked no bait takes found”.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas

The property’s lease sets out that the landlord shall keep in good repair and condition the common parts of the building. In order to fulfil this obligation the landlord has employed a contractor to undertake weekly cleaning.
In order to satisfy itself regarding the standard of cleaning undertaken by the contractor, the landlord completed estate inspections. As part of an estate inspection, gardening, cleanliness, signage, walls, roofs, paving, lighting, rubbish and health and safety are looked at. The Ombudsman notes the rating following the November 2019 inspection was three star, the rating following the December 2019 inspection was four star and the rating following the January 2020 inspection was four star. Whilst the resident was not satisfied with the standard of cleaning, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the service provided was reasonable based on the outcomes of the block inspections.
In response to the complaint the landlord inspected the building, identifying some “minor attention to detail issues” as noted in paragraph 7d above. The landlord has provided photographs and a report detailing that the issues were attended to.
Within its complaint response the landlord apologised that it had not updated the leaseholder that the local authority did not recycle glass. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the apology was proportionate to the landlord’s omission.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the communal heating and hot water system

The evidence shows on 22 February 2020 the system experienced a major fault which impacted on the hot water and heating within the building. The landlord’s records show that by 18 March 2020 the system had been repaired and hot water and heating had been restored to the block. The system was therefore out of service for a period of approximately 25 days. While the Ombudsman notes that this is a protracted period of time, the Ombudsman also notes that the repair required to remedy the fault to the system was extensive as it involved removal and replacement of pipework. The Ombudsman understands there will be cases, which due to the nature, complexity or extent of work needed, cannot be completed within a short timeframe, and therefore time taken to remedy an issue is not always indicative of a service failure.
The evidence shows that between 24 February 2020 and 18 March 2020 the landlord provided regular updates to the residents within the block regarding the status of the repair, and anticipated timescales for completion. This included on 24, 27, 28 February 2020 and 2, 4, 13 and 18 March 2020. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was appropriate in order to keep residents informed and to manage their expectations. Within the updates the landlord confirmed that the cost to repair and restore the system would not be passed on to residents and compensation would be awarded once the repair was completed.
The evidence also shows that during the period the system was out of service the landlord provided heaters, arranged access to showers at the local leisure centre and arranged a temporary shower cubicle outside of the block. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s actions were appropriate to mitigate the impact of the situation on residents.
On 6 April 2020 the landlord wrote to residents confirming that it would like to offer £200 compensation per household. The landlord explained that its offer exceeded the amount allowed under its policy which was £100. The landlord stated that its offer was above what it would usually offer due to the “severe disruption and significant inconvenience” residents experienced. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s offer was reasonable, taking into account the complexity of the repair, the solutions it provided to assist the residents in managing the situation and noting that the landlord was not recharging the cost of the repair to residents.
The evidence shows that prior to his complaint and before the fault in February 2020 the leaseholder did experience periods of no hot water and heating due to faults with the system. In December 2018 the leaseholder reported no hot water and in response the landlord assisted him in replacing a faulty value in the property. In September and October 2019 the landlord’s repair records document two incidents of no heating and hot water due to a fault with the system. Both incidents were attended to on the same day and the system was left in working order.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the lifts

The landlord’s repair policy sets out the following priority categories for completing repairs:
1. Emergency repair – attend and make safe within 24 hours.
2. Urgent Repairs – attend within three working days, complete within five working days.
3. Routine Repairs – attend within five working days, complete within 20 working days.
The policy confirms that the landlord will manage repairs to shared communal areas, including lifts, to the same timescale and standard as internal repairs.
The landlord has provided its repair record for the lifts. The Ombudsman notes that the records sufficiently support the landlord’s account of the lift faults given within its complaint response and that there was not an excessive number of breakdowns within the period.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s conclusion that the lifts did not require replacement was reasonable as its records demonstrated that the lift breakdowns were not exceptional. The Ombudsman notes that a landlord’s obligation is to repair rather than to replace where an item is not beyond economical repair.

The landlord’s delay in completing cyclical redecorations

The lease agreement for the property sets out that the landlord shall keep in repair, including decorative repair, the structure and exterior of the block. The lease does not prescribe a timeframe for undertaking decorative repair.
The landlord has confirmed that it will normally look to complete the first cyclical decoration between five to seven years after the first residents move in. In the case of the building the landlord confirmed that it should have been 2018.
The landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that the cyclical decoration was postponed “due to major communal leaks from the system pipework and [its] subsequent project to completely replace [the] pipework”. The landlord confirmed that following the successful replacement of the pipework for the system it has commenced the formal section 20 consultation with residents regarding the programme of cyclical works which are anticipated to take place in 2021.
While the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s reasoning in postponing the cyclical decoration, as set out above, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord communicated its decision to residents at that time which is unsatisfactory. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s omission alone does not amount to a service failure as it did not significantly adversely affect the leaseholder’s occupation of the property.

The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding cladding

Following the Grenfell Tower fire in summer 2017, in December 2018 the Government introduced Advice Note 14 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary the advice was for owners of high-rise buildings where the external wall system 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 residents, that their building was safe. This guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states ‘For the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act’.
On 27 December 2019 the landlord wrote to all residents providing an update on cladding on the building. In summary the landlord said:
1. It had completed its review of the report following the test on the cladding on the building in line with Advice Note 14.
2. The conclusion following the report was that the cladding did not meet the requirements of Advice Note 14. The landlord provided a summary of the findings from the report in an annexe.
3. While the report concluded that the building was not compliant with Advice Note 14, it did not however mean that the building was not safe.
4. It understood that the conclusion following the test would be disappointing to residents, especially those who were trying to sell or remortgage their properties. The landlord noted that it was aware that some lenders were willing to accept a valid fire risk assessment in lieu of certification pursuant to Advice Note 14.
5. It was prioritising a programme of remediation works and would write to residents as soon as it had further details.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s letter was appropriate to demonstrate that it was taking steps to comply with the guidance and to reassure the residents. While the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord communicated with the leaseholder following the introduction of Advice Note 14 in December 2018, prior to its letter, the Ombudsman does not consider that in this case it amounts to a service failure. While the Ombudsman considers that it would have been best practice for the landlord to have informed the leaseholder and other residents regarding Advice Note 14 at an earlier point due to the possible impact on their properties, the Ombudsman has not identified that the landlord’s omission disadvantaged the leaseholder directly during this period – for example in relation to making an informed decision regarding sale of the property or a remortgage application. The Ombudsman notes that, following the complaint, the landlord has kept residents updated regarding the remedial works to achieve compliance with Advice Note 14, primarily via the residents’ association and meetings. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it expects to start the remediation works in March 2021.
The landlord has undertaken annual fire safety inspections at the building in which the property is situated. This is appropriate to identify hazards, to mitigate risks and to comply with fire safety legislation. The Ombudsman notes that the most recent inspection (dated July 2019) prior to the complaint found that that the risk rating was medium indicating “normal fire hazards for this type of occupancy with fire hazards generally subject to appropriate controls”.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding its management of anti-social behaviour (ASB)
2. Response to a pest infestation
3. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the standard of cleaning in the communal areas
4. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding the condition of the lifts
5. Delay in completing cyclical redecorations
6. Communication with the resident regarding cladding
In accordance with 55b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which resolves the following aspects of the complaint:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns regarding its communication
2. Handling of repairs to the communal heating and hot water system

Reasons

As the leaseholder did not provide any specific examples of poor communication by the landlord, the landlord’s approach in responding to the complaint by providing a general response on its communication and management of the block was reasonable. It was also appropriate that the landlord apologised that the leaseholder felt that its communication had been poor to demonstrate that it acknowledged his experience and it was seeking to put things right.
The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the landlord failed to respond to or investigate any ASB allegations by the leaseholder.
The landlord took appropriate steps to investigate and address a pest infestation at the building by instructing a pest control contractor to undertake a series of baiting.
It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the cleaning service it provided in relation to the communal areas was reasonable based on the outcomes of the block inspections it undertook.
While the time taken to repair the system following a fault in February 2020 was protracted, the landlord acknowledged this in awarding the leaseholder £200 compensation. The landlord took steps to mitigate the impact on the leaseholder by providing heaters, arranging access to showers at the local leisure centre and arranging a temporary shower cubicle outside of the block while the repair was outstanding. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint.
The evidence shows that prior to his complaint and before the fault to the system in February 2020 the leaseholder did experience periods of no hot water and heating. In December 2018 the leaseholder reported no hot water and in response the landlord assisted him in replacing a faulty value in the property. In September and October 2019 the landlord’s repair records document two incidents of no heating and hot water due to a fault with the system. Both incidents were attended to on the same day and the system was left in working order.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s conclusion that the lifts did not require replacement was reasonable as its records demonstrated that the lift breakdowns were not exceptional, and repairs to resolve breakdowns were carried out within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord delayed the cyclical decoration “due to major communal leaks from the system pipework and [its] subsequent project to completely replace [the] pipework”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s decision to do so was reasonable.
The evidence shows that the landlord is taking steps to achieve compliance with Advice Note 14 in respect of the building.
The landlord’s letter to the leaseholder dated 27 December 2019 was appropriate to demonstrate that it was taking steps to comply with the Advice Note 14 and to reassure him. While it would have been best practice for the landlord to have communicated at an earlier point with the leaseholder following the introduction of Advice Note 14, and the possible impact on the property, the Ombudsman has not identified that the landlord’s omission disadvantaged the leaseholder directly during this period – for example in relation to making an informed decision regarding sale of the property or a remortgage application.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that all leaseholders who are impacted by Advice Note 14 are kept appropriately informed of the steps it is taking to achieve compliance, including timescales – even if provisional.