West Northamptonshire Council — case 202318491

Decision Case ID 202318491 Decision type Investigation Landlord West Northamptonshire Council Landlord type Local Authority Occupancy Leaseholder Date 22 January 2026 Background The complainant became the leaseholder for a 1-bedroom second floor flat in a block of flats in 2008. The leaseholder rents the property to tenants. The landlord is the freeholder of the property. It told the leaseholder in 2023 it intended to install a new communal heating system in the building. What the complaint is about The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s concerns about proposed works in the building.

We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling. Our decision (determination) We have found that: There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s concerns about proposed works in the building. There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have made orders for the landlord to put things right. Summary of reasons The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s concerns about the proposed works in the building The landlord appropriately followed the consultation process required by legislation about proposed works.

It also reasonably responded to the leaseholder’s concerns about the works when he raised them both in general correspondence and during his complaints. The landlord’s complaint handling The landlord failed to acknowledge the leaseholder’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. It also failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the timescales set out in its policy. 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 leaseholder for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: 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 20 February 2026 2 Compensation order The landlord must pay the leaseholder £125 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failure. This must be paid directly to the leaseholder by the due date. The landlord must provide us with documentary evidence of the payment by the due date. No later than 20 February 2026 Our investigation The complaint procedure Date What happened 12 June 2023 Landlords must follow a process before charging leaseholders for major works or long‑term service agreements.

The obligation comes from Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord sent a letter to consult with the leaseholder about proposed heating works in the building. 15 June 2023 The leaseholder complained to the landlord about its handling of his concerns about the proposed works. 23 August 2023 The leaseholder contacted us as the landlord had not replied to his complaint. 11 December 2023 We contacted the landlord and asked it to respond to the leaseholder’s complaint.

14 December 2023 The landlord sent a response to the leaseholder at stage 1 of its complaint’s procedure. It said the leaseholder was liable to pay the costs of the works under the tenancy agreement. 19 December 2023 The leaseholder escalated his complaint. 24 January 2024 The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder. The landlord said it had sent the section 20 notice as it was required to do and the leaseholder was liable to pay towards the costs of the works.

Referral to the Ombudsman The leaseholder remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaints. 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. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the leaseholder’s concerns about proposed works Finding No maladministration The building in which the leaseholder’s property is located had a communal heating system.

The leaseholder paid for heating costs through service charges. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it decided it would upgrade the building’s heating system. Its rationale for doing so was because it was no longer financially viable to carry out repairs to the existing system. The property lease agreement states that the landlord is responsible for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the communal heating system. The lease adds the leaseholder is responsible to contribute towards the costs of modernisation and renewal of boilers that serve the building.

The lease does not state that the landlord is responsible for relocating residents of the property during repairs or improvement works. There is a legal necessity for a landlord to issue notices to affected leaseholders when it intends to carry out major works. The Section 20 consultation process is intended to protect leaseholders from paying unnecessarily large sums for work carried out to their building. The landlord has not confirmed to us when it first told the leaseholder of its intention to upgrade the heating system, but he emailed the landlord on 16 May 2023 regarding the matter.

The leaseholder asked for a breakdown of the costs for the heating works. He also asked if the landlord would temporarily relocate his tenants while the works were completed and if he could opt out of the works. The landlord and the leaseholder exchanged emails on 5 June 2023. The landlord said the works were routine replacements and it could not provide alternative accommodation for his tenants. It provided a breakdown of the approximate £4,000 costs to do the works and said they could take 2 weeks or less to complete.

The leaseholder said the landlord should relocate his tenants. He asked when the works were likely to commence and how he would be charged for them. The landlord replied and said it was not obligated to relocate the occupants, and it could provide a start date for the works after he confirmed when it could gain access to the property. The landlord said the invoice for the works would be sent to him in September 2024 and he would have the option to pay it in full or to arrange a payment plan.

The landlord sent a Section 20 notice to the leaseholder on 12 June 2023 for the installation of a new communal heating system for the building. This notice provided the leaseholder with the details of the work to be completed, estimated costs of the works, and gave him 30 days to reply with observations. The notice was issued in line with the landlord’s legal obligations. On 15 June 2023 the leaseholder complained to the landlord. He said it had not considered that his tenants would have to vacate the property during the works.

The landlord replied on 26 June 2023 and said it had followed the correct procedures and issued the Section 20 notice to him. It reiterated there was no obligation for it to relocate his tenants. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the leaseholder on 14 December 2023. It said the leaseholder paid towards communal heating through service charges, but he was expected to contribute to the costs of repairs, replacements or modernisation that served the building. The landlord said he was notified of the works through the Section 20 notice and was provided with a breakdown of costs.

It said it subsequently replied to his observations. The landlord said the properties in the building were required to be vacant during the works, but it was not its responsibility to temporarily rehome his tenants. The leaseholder escalated his complaint on 19 December 2023. He said the landlord decided to upgrade the heating system, so it should fund the works. He said he had not been consulted over its decision not to rehome his tenants while the works were done. On 24 January 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder.

It said although the building had a heating system it was no longer financially viable to repair it, so it was necessary to install a new system. The landlord said the property lease reserved the right for the landlord to replace a communal facility and to repair and renew pipes, drains and apparatus serving the block. The landlord said the works would likely mean the leaseholder’s property would be without heat and hot water for one day at the most, and they would be carried out in the summer months, so it would not be mandatory for tenants to move out.

During this investigation the landlord told us that although the heating system upgrade was carried out in the building in 2024, it decided not to include the leaseholder’s property in those works as he declined to contribute towards the associated costs. The evidence shows that the landlord followed the Section 20 consultation process and responded to the leaseholders concerns about its intent to carry out works to the building’s heating system. The leaseholder effectively opted out of the works when he refused to contribute to the cost of the replacement hot water heating system.

The landlord acted reasonably and in accordance with its obligations and there was no maladministration in its handling of his concerns about proposed works. Complaint The landlord’s handling of the complaint Finding Maladministration The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days from when it is raised. It should send its stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord should acknowledge escalated complaints within 5 working days and send its stage 2 response within 20 working days.

The leaseholder complained to the landlord on 15 June 2023. The landlord did not acknowledge the complaint. After we told the landlord to reply to the leaseholder’s complaint, it sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 December 2023. This response was sent 6 months after the leaseholder had complained to the landlord. The landlord did not offer any redress for the delay. The failure to do so was unreasonable. The leaseholder escalated his complaint on 19 December 2023. The landlord failed to acknowledge the leaseholder’s request to escalate as required by its policy.

On 24 January 2024 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the leaseholder. This was outside of the timescale allowed by its policy. The landlord again did not offer any redress to the leaseholder for its delayed response. The evidence shows the landlord failed to follow its complaint handling process which in turn led to significant delays for the complaint to be answered. The time taken by the landlord to resolve the complaint was unreasonable. The landlord’s failures lead to a determination of maladministration in its complaint handling.

The landlord is ordered to pay £125 compensation to the leaseholder for the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance which recommends this amount where there have been failures by the landlord and it did not put matters right. Learning Knowledge information management (record keeping) The landlord was not able toprovide the dates the works were first proposed. This suggests there is an opportunity for the landlord to improve its record keepingto ensure all relevant information is retrievable and able to be accessed when considering complaints.

Communication The evidence shows the landlord did not always reply to the leaseholder’s correspondence. The landlord should look for opportunities to draw learning from this complaint to inform improved customer service going forward.