Octavia Housing — case 202417526

Decision Case ID 202417526 Decision type Investigation Landlord Octavia Housing Landlord type Housing Association Occupancy Leaseholder Date 26 January 2026 Background The resident decided to sell the property in 2020. While preparing the sale, the landlord conducted the external wall system fire safety assessment (EWS1). It identified problems and eventually found the cladding did not meet building standards. In 2023, the resident complained about its handling of related works and other communal repairs.

What the complaint is about The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of: Fire safety remedial works. Maintenance of the block fire alarm system. Balcony repairs. Repairs to the intercom. Repairs to communal doors. Repairs to the communal lift. The associated complaint. Our decision (determination) We found: There was service failure by the landlord in its handling of fire safety remedial works. There was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of: Maintenance of the block fire alarm system.

Balcony repairs. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the intercom. The landlord made a reasonable offer of redress for its handling of: Repairs to communal doors. Repairs to the communal lift. There was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons Fire safety remedial works The landlord took the fire safety works seriously. It took appropriate action early in the timeline to reduce the risks to residents.

The required works are complex. The landlord had to instruct different surveyors, appeal to the NHBC, and pursue a legal dispute to determine liability and ensure that residents would not face the cost of the repair. However, we found service failure because the landlord did not use its complaint handling effectively to address the detriment these delays had on the resident. The delays contributed to problems with her mortgage applications and she took time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates and information.

Maintenance of the block fire alarm system The landlord showed that it conducted regular maintenance of the fire alarm system and instructed specialist contractors to resolve any faults identified. Although the same fault appeared twice in 2 years, the landlord had trouble accessing a property and the fault did not affect the other devices in the block. Balcony repairs The landlord took timely action to remove unsafe decorative lipping following incidents in May 2021. It confirmed the replacement of the lipping was a latent defect and said there will be no costs to any residents.

It has advised that the builder will reinstate the decorative lipping on balconies at the same time as the cladding works. Repairs to the intercom The landlord took around 8 months to repair a damaged intercom. Although there were some mitigating circumstances for the final 4 months of these delays, the first 4 were made worse by its lack of oversight. The landlord did not chase its contractor and allowed the repair to drift. It did not make any offer to put things right for the resident in its stage 2 response.

Repairs to communal doors and lift The landlord did not dispute the delays in its handling of these repairs. It made reasonable offers of compensation which reflected the time, trouble and the inconvenience the delays caused the resident. Complaint handling The landlord failed to comply with our Complaint Handling Code. It did not issue a stage 1 response,delayed issuing its stage 2 response and did not address its complaint handling failures. Although it later reviewed these failures and offered compensation, this was more than 12 months after the complaints process and only after the resident escalated her complaint to us.

Putting things right Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction. Orders Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set. Order What the landlord must do Due date 1 Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report.

The landlord must ensure: The apology is provided by a senior manager. The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance. No later than 23 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the resident £450 compensation. This is comprised of: £200 for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by its handling of fire safety remedial works. £50 for the resident’s time and trouble caused by its handling of repairs to the intercom.

£200 for its complaint handling failures. This must be paid directly to the resident by the due date. The landlord must provide documentary evidence to payment by the due date. The landlord may deduct from the total figure any payments it has already paid. No later than 23 February 2026 Recommendations Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them. Our recommendations The resident has said that the remediation work is yet to commence at the property.

The landlord should commit to ensuring that it carries out the work as soon as possible, with minimal disruption for residents and continue to keep everyone updated. It should provide a clear update to the resident with an expected start date for the work and confirmation of how frequently it will update residents in the meantime. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident the £158.24 offered for the failings in its handling of the communal doors and lift.

Our findings of reasonable redress have been made on the basis that it has paid these amounts to the resident. Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 2020 – 2023 In 2020, the landlord conducted a fire assessment of the building which highlighted issues with the type of cladding and barriers around windows. Also, the resident sought to sell the property. As part of the sale, she requested an external wall system fire safety assessment (EWS1). The EWS1 raised several concerns with the construction that did not comply with building codes.

The landlord instructed surveys from different contractors in 2020 and 2021. It began a dispute with the NHBC and builder to determine if the materials used complied with code at the time of construction. During 2021 there were 2 incidents where cladding fell from balconies on the scheme. In March 2022 the communal lift broke down. After ordering parts, its contractor repaired the lift in June 2022. On 10 June 2022, it wrote to residents and offered £83.24 each as a refund for the associated service charges.

February – September 2023 In February 2023 water penetrated the intercom. After unsuccessful attempts to refurbish parts in February 2023, the landlord ordered new parts and installed them in September 2023. May – July 2023 The main communal door was vandalised in May 2023 and would not lock. The landlord passed the works to its contractor who completed the repairs in July 2023. The landlord offered residents £75 on 8 September 2023 to refund the service charge and provide a gesture of goodwill given the time taken to complete door repairs.

2 September 2023 The resident wrote to the landlord’s board of directors. She felt the landlord had not treated the situation seriously and wanted it to: Make the building safe and comply with fire safety regulations. Share the findings of its fire surveys and the recommendations. Act on the communal maintenance issues. September – October 2023 The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email as a complaint on 21 September 2023. It attended a resident’s meeting on 26 September 2023 and produced an action plan.

On 6 October 2023, the landlord noted the resident sought to escalate her complaint during the meeting. 15 November 2023 The landlord issued its stage 2 response. It separated the issues raised by the resident and responded to them in turn. It upheld the complaint about the lack of timely actions to progress remedial works. It responded as below: It listed the actions taken to assess and mitigate the risks found in the fire safety report. It shared a revised delivery plan to residents in October 2023.

It planned more intrusive surveys in December 2023. It had an ongoing legal dispute with the original project team and so was unable to circulate the contents of any reports related to the remedial works. It removed the defective trims from balconies to reduce further risk. It would not charge residents as this was a latent defect. It took longer than expected to repair the intercom between January and September 2023. It paid residents £75 for the time taken to repair the communal doors between April and June 2023.

The lift was out of commission for some months and returned to service in June 2022. It had appointed a new lift contractor at the time to resolve the issue. It serviced and cleared all but 1 fault from the fire alarm system in August 2023. The 1 remaining was an ongoing access issue to another property. December 2023-Present The landlord pursued its claim to the NHBC and the builder. It provided updates to the residents and decided not to pursue any costs from leaseholders for the remedial work.

Referral to the Ombudsman The resident escalated her complaint to us. She said: The issues were ongoing. She felt the landlord had delayed unreasonably in acknowledging or acting on the findings of the report in 2020. She was unable to sell or staircase ownership of the property because it did not comply with fire safety and building regulations. She wanted a minimum of £25,000 compensation and the landlord’s commitment to complete the works at no cost to leaseholders. What we found and why The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed.

We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration. What we have not investigated We encourage residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, normally within 12 months of the issues arising, so that the landlord can consider them whilst they are still ‘live’ and whilst the evidence is available to properly investigate. We recognise that the resident did not make a formal complaint until 2 September 2023.

However, the landlord has included events from 2021 onwards in its stage 2 response. Therefore, we have considered the events of December 2020 to December 2023 as part of this investigation. The records show the resident made further complaints to the landlord in 2024 and 2025. While we may conduct further investigation beyond a landlord’s final complaint response, it must be reasonable for us to do so. The complaints had not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure at the time the resident made her referral to our Service.

Therefore, these newer complaints fall outside the scope of this investigation. Complaint Fire safety remedial works Finding Service failure The government issued ‘Advice Note 14’ in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary, the advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves, and their leaseholders, that their building was safe. In December 2019, form EWS1 was introduced to prove to lenders that external cladding had been assessed by an expert.

The government consolidated ‘Advice Note 14’ when it issued ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’ (BSA) in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance stated that building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents. Paragraph 1.5 stated that the need to assess and manage the risk of external fire spread applied to buildings of any height. In response to the guidance, some lenders took the view that, if certification could not be provided to demonstrate compliance with the government’s guidance on fire safety, they would be unwilling to offer a mortgage on properties within these buildings as they would have a zero valuation.

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Dealing with Cladding Complaints published in May 2021 said: It is clear most landlords were taking a risk-based approach to inspections and, whilst this was rational, these plans did not appear to adequately consider the broader implications for all residents, especially those living in buildings below 18 metres. It is essential for landlords to provide a clear road map, with timescales, to all residents. Effective communication is vital, and landlords need to assure themselves that their strategy for this is robust, well-resourced and proactive.

Landlords must ensure that they are proactive in providing appropriate and timely updates on a regular basis, at least once every 3 months even where there is little or no change. Landlords should always address the individual circumstances presented in a complaint. The landlord has not disputed that it was responsible for resolving the fire safety remedial works. The surveys it conducted in 2020 and 2021 raised concerns with the ACM cladding and cavity barriers. Building control had signed off the works after construction but there was a dispute over whether they should have been.

It was therefore appropriate that the landlord pursued a claim through the NHBC. This resulted in a lengthy legal process and required multiple surveys from the landlord, NHBC, and builder. The landlord’s records show that it reasonably sought to manage expectations and inform residents of the timescales involved for this claim in 2021. What the resident has disputed is whether the landlord took all reasonable steps to progress the work and maintain communication. She believes it lied about the survey results in 2021, causing delays in developing a programme of repairs.

In her complaint, she said she wanted the landlord to provide a clear plan to complete the works and pay compensation for the impact it had on residents. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.

The resident requested an EWS1 form in May 2020. The landlord instructed contractors who completed the assessment in September 2020. Although 5 months was a long time to produce this survey, there was no legal deadline or requirement for the landlord to produce the EWS1 form within a set timescale. There was also disruption to services across the sector at this time during the COVID-19 pandemic. The EWS1 form suggested that the ACM cladding did not comply with building standards.

To be considered high risk, the building must be above 18 metres tall. This building is under 18 metres, so below the minimum height to have been considered high risk at the time. Therefore, there was no prescribed timeframe for the landlord to complete any remedial works. Given the lack of prescribed timeframe, it was not unreasonable for the landlord to take around 3 months to introduce precautionary measures in December 2020. It was appropriate that the landlord considered the possible risks to residents and took fire prevention actions.

It instructed a specialist electrical contractor to upgrade the smoke detection system to individual properties and the communal area. It used a 24 hour fire warden service between December 2020 and January 2021 until it completed the upgrade. It also did additional fire stopping works to communal risers and increased the number of fire inspections for the block. Its actions show it took the risks seriously and took reasonable steps to mitigate those for residents. In addition to the fire safety works, we found that the landlord clearly set out very early in the timeline what it had found and the actions that it was taking.

Between October and December 2020, it informed residents of its surveys and the precautionary measures it was taking. In 2021, it shared a programme of works it planned between July 2021 and November 2022. It continued to provide regular updates following the works it completed throughout 2021 and 2022. It also shared the outcome of meetings with building safety specialists and how it prioritised works ahead of other schemes. The landlord continued to communicate regularly in 2023.

It wrote to residents ahead of planned works and attended regular resident meetings, sharing minutes with them. It updated its road map in a resident meeting in July 2023. It then shared a programme with residents in October 2023. Although this took additional time to produce, it was because of the detailed investigations necessary at the time, and legally sensitive information in the surveys. While it was reasonable that the landlord chose not to provide some documents, it shared its overall plan and this was acceptable.

In her complaint, the resident said the landlord failed to act on the survey reports in a timely manner. She said this caused a delay providing a scope of work or clear plan. The landlord was aware of the ACM issues for 3 years at this point. She felt the landlord’s legal proceedings interfered with the speed of the project. It was evident from her complaint that the delay caused her frustration and she took considerable time and trouble pursuing her concerns. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the resident’s concerns and advised whether there were any delays – and, if so, whether these were avoidable or not.

In its stage 2 response, the landlord upheld her complaint about the lack of timely actions to progress the works. It accepted there were delays scoping the remedial works and attributed these to the time concluding intrusive surveys. It showed that it learned lessons from these delays and had produced revised plans. However, it did not address the impact these had on the resident in terms of her distress and inconvenience, or time and trouble. That the landlord did not address these concerns was a failure to engage with the complaint in a meaningful way.

The resident also said that the landlord was not transparent with the findings from the fire surveys. The landlord explained that it was in a legal dispute with the original project team and could not share the contents of any related reports. It would not be appropriate for the landlord to include sensitive information about its contractual negotiations. It was reasonable to say it would share these documents once it was able to. It also provided a proportionate level of detail to show what steps it had taken to mitigate the risks in its scope of works and delivery plans.

We found service failure in the landlord’s handling of fire safety remedial works. The records show the landlord took the matter seriously. The required remediation works are complex and much of the delay is the result of the landlord’s legal dispute with the developer, project team, and NHBC. The landlord took reasonable steps early in the timeline to mitigate risks to residents. It has communicated regularly, and broadly follows the recommendations set out in our spotlight report on dealing with cladding complaints.

It also appropriately upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted delays in scoping works and concluding surveys. However, it did not fully address the detriment these delays had on the resident. The evidence shows the delays contributed to problems with her mortgage applications and she took time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates and information. The landlord must pay the resident £100 for her time and trouble caused by the failures in its handling of the fire safety remedial works.

It must also pay £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in scoping the works and concluding the surveys. This reflects the landlord’s failure to appropriately acknowledge or put right its failures in accordance with our Guidance on Remedies. Complaint Maintenance of the block fire alarm system Finding No maladministration In her complaint, the resident said the landlord had not repaired fire alarms for years. The records show the landlord upgraded the fire detection system in January 2021 as a precautionary safety measure.

Its block fire assessments in February 2022 and February 2023 highlighted a faulty alarm in 1 property within the block. In its stage 2 response, the landlord confirmed that the fault was isolated to 1 property and did not affect the other devices in the block. It also showed that it had serviced the system regularly and cleared any faults at other individual properties. Its response was appropriate and fairly addressed the resident’s concern. Complaint Balcony repairs Finding No maladministration The landlord’s routine repairs policy sets out its responsibilities and timescales to complete repairs.

It attends emergency repairs (where there is an immediate danger to people) within 24 hours and will make the property secure. It attends urgent repairs (where there is no immediate health, safety, or similar risk) within 5 working days. It includes broken door entry systems as an example of urgent repairs. It attends routine repairs within 15 working days. There were two incidents where decorative lipping fell from balconies in high winds. These were on 1 and 2 May 2021. These would require an urgent response in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy.

It promptly inspected the balconies and conducted risk assessments on 5 May 2021, which was 1 working day later. The landlord identified concerns with the decorative trims and removed all others from the balconies on the block. This was an appropriate response and reflected the serious risk of harm associated with these falling from height. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it subsequently confirmed all balconies were structurally safe. It classified the replacement of the lipping as a latent defect and said there will be no costs to any residents.

The builder will also reinstate the decorative lipping on balconies at the same time as the cladding. Its response was reasonable, it clarified how it would manage costs and showed that it had taken appropriate action to prevent further risk to residents. Complaint Repairs to the intercom Finding Maladministration Water penetrated the intercom to another block on the same scheme in February 2023 and damaged the control board. We have considered the landlord’s handling of repairs to the intercom affecting that block as the resident raised this as part of her complaint about the overall communal maintenance service from the landlord.

She raised her concerns about the intercom for her property after the landlord’s stage 2 response in December 2023. We have not considered this second intercom repair as part of our investigation as she reported these to the landlord after it issued its stage 2 response. The landlord instructed a specialist contractor to assess the fault and find a replacement part. Its contractor attended the report in February 2023 and informed the landlord that some parts needed upgrading.

This initial response was reasonable and complied with the landlord’s repair timescales. The landlord said it did not receive this quote and sought an update on 24 May 2023. It sent a second contractor on 1 June 2023. This was 5 working days later. It instigated work within the required timescales but the overall delays to this point were already unreasonable. The second contractor was unable to repair the damaged part in June 2023 and ordered another part in July 2023. They installed the parts and repaired the intercom in September 2023.

The landlord’s repair policy says that where a repair is more complicated or requires replacement parts, it may not complete the repair in its prescribed timescales. This is a reasonable approach. It also says it will keep residents updated with the reasons for the delay and when it will complete the repair. Its records show that it did share updates on this and other maintenance issues during a resident meeting in July 2023. Further, we recognise that there were some mitigating factors such as a delay in receiving parts.

However, it took 8 months for the landlord to repair the damaged intercom and the first 4 months of this delay were because it did not actively manage the repair. The landlord did not chase the contractor and allowed the repair to drift. The landlord acknowledged these delays and explained the cause in its stage 2 response. The landlord must pay the resident £50 compensation to reflect the time and trouble caused to her by the delay in the intercom repair. We make this finding in accordance with our Guidance on Remedies for circumstances where a landlord failing has a limited impact on a resident.

Complaint Repairs to communal doors Finding Reasonable redress The landlord’s records show that it received a report that the communal door was not locking as it should on 9 May 2023. After making further enquires, it found that the repair had been reported to its contractor on 13 April 2023. It did not complete the repair until July 2023, which was around 2 months later. In the period between these dates, the resident sought updates and the landlord escalated the repair with its contractor.

The landlord has not disputed that it took an unreasonable time to complete the repair to the communal door. In its stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged the frustration the delay caused the resident. Its offer of £75 compensation, which included £50 for her time and trouble and £25 for her service charge, was reasonable. It reflected the detriment caused and resolved the complaint in the circumstances. Complaint Repairs to the communal lift Finding Reasonable redress The records show the lift stopped working between April and June 2022.

The landlord recognised the inconvenience this caused in June 2022 and made a reasonable offer of £83.24 compensation. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 response that this was an unreasonable period to be without a lift. Although its response was vague (referring to the timeframe as a “couple of months”), it broadly recognised the time that the lift was out of service in 2022. The resident does not live at the property and did not during 2022. There was no increased detriment to her beyond other residents by the lift being out of service.

It was fair to refer the resident to the compensation offered in June 2022 and not increase this further. Complaint The handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord’s complaint handling policy complies with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and issue responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It is important that the landlord maintains these complaint handling commitments when responding to complaints.

The resident complained on 2 September 2023 to the landlord’s executive board. The landlord opened a complaint on 15 September 2023 and acknowledged this with the resident on 20 September 2023. It failed to acknowledge her complaint within 5 working days. It then also failed to issue a stage 1 response. This caused the resident additional time and trouble pursuing her complaints. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint following a meeting on 26 September 2023. It acknowledged this escalation on 6 October 2023.

This was 8 working days later and outside the 5 working day acknowledgement timescale. It then issued its stage 2 response 28 working days later, on 15 November 2023. These delays were inappropriate. The landlord addressed its complaint handling after the resident escalated her complaint to us. It wrote to her on 18 March 2025 and confirmed that it had improved its policies to be compliant with the Code. It apologised for the delays and failure to issue a stage 1 response. It offered £200 compensation for these related failures.

We welcome and encourage landlords to learn from complaints. It was positive in this case that the landlord reviewed its approach while preparing the case for escalation to us. It appropriately apologised for its failures and offered £200 compensation. It was evident that the landlord had learned from these failures as it explained the actions it had taken to stop this happening again. Although the landlord’s later compensation was sufficient, we have found maladministration given its failings thought the complaints process.

It did not issue a stage 1 response, there was a delay in its stage 2 response, and it did not reflect on its complaint handling at stage 2. We have not awarded any further compensation as the landlord’s £200 offer was proportionate. Learning Fire safety remediation It is positive that the landlord followed through with its commitments at stage 2. It pursued the NHBC claim, which concluded in September 2024. It provided the resident with the outcome of the claim and has shared revised plans to complete the works.

It should consider that the UK Government introduced a Remediation Acceleration Plan in December 2024 to address the perceived slow pace of remediation work. This widened the scope to identify all buildings above 11m in height with unsafe cladding, focusing on the most dangerous cladding (e.g. ACM) so they are fixed by 2029. Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord kept broadly clear and accurate records. However, we found issues with its records when dealing with some of the communal repairs.

The landlord should be mindful of its repair obligations and the timescales involved. Good record keeping will improve its ability to have proper oversight of repairs and prevent the drifts seen throughout this case. Communication Throughout the timeline of this case, the landlord maintained good communication with the resident. It provided regular updates through resident meetings, newsletters, and appointment letters. It provided timely responses to the resident’s queries.