The complaint

The complainant, a leaseholder, stated there had been a major lack of communication regarding serious, essential maintenance issues, including 3 out of 4 lifts being broken for months, leaks causing damage to their apartment and updates regarding documentation and funds relating to cladding. Little to no updates were provided regarding the broken lifts, despite multiple chaser emails and no expected timescales were shared.

Concerns regarding a leak in the complainant’s apartment were raised, with the agent responding by suggesting the leak was coming from the flat above and that they had been in contact with the letting agent for the owner to resolve the issue. In contrast, the leaseholder noted the leak was not linked to the flat above but was coming from the roof due to a gutter problem.

Regarding cladding documentation, the agent promised to send this out by mid-July yet no documentation was ever sent and no updates provided since then.

The investigation

The agent was unable to provide any evidence to support that they ever returned any of the complainant’s telephone calls. Along with this, they did not complete their formal complaints handling process, never issued a final viewpoint letter and also failed to engage with The Property Ombudsman when additional information was required.

Adjudication concluded that the agent did not meet the relevant codes of practice, nor were able to meet RICS and General Member Obligation requirements for complaints handling. The agent did not respond to multiple communications, did not give timely updates or seek expected timescales from their client or contractors. As the agent did not demonstrate that they were actively monitoring or following up on concerns raised, adjudication supported the complaint from the leaseholder.

It was highlighted by the complainant that during a meeting, agency staff said that anyone who could not cope with stairs and was solely reliant on the lifts should consider whether they should be living in the premises. Although there was no evidence of this comment being made, adjudication noted that the agent had not responded to clarify or provide their view on this part of the complaint and therefore supported this aspect of the dispute.

The award

Overall, the complaint was supported and the adjudicator found that the lapses and failure of communication and complaints handling process caused the complainant to expend time and effort following up on their concerns. An award of £250 was made for the service shortcomings.