Lambeth Council (202010775)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202010775

Lambeth Council

23 November 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 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

1.     The complaint is about:

  1. The landlord’s handling of reports that the concierge service was not being delivered.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for breakdown of her service charge.
  3. The landlord’s response to reports of belongings being stored in the communal area.
  4. The landlord contacting the resident’s mortgage provider without her permission.
  5. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Policies, Procedures and the Legal Context

2.     The landlord’s website summarises the rights and obligations of leaseholders under the “Landlord & Tenant Act 1985: Section 21B section 153 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002”.  The website states:             

  1. “You have the right to write to your landlord to request a written summary of the costs which make up the service charges. The summary must:
    1. cover the last 12 month period used for making up the accounts relating to the service charge ending no later than the date of your request, where the accounts are made up for 12 month periods.
    2. cover the 12 month period ending with the date of your request, where the accounts are not made up for 12 month periods.
  2. The summary must be given to you within one month of your request or six months of the end of the period to which the summary relates whichever is the later.
  3. You have the right, within six months of receiving a written summary of costs, to require the landlord to provide you with reasonable facilities to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary and for taking copies or extracts from them.”

3.     The landlord’s antisocial behaviour (ASB) policy lists behaviour that is prohibited under its tenancy agreement.  The policy notes that under the section, “Your duty not to cause nuisance or harass others”:

  1. “You may not put anything in the Communal Areas that is likely to cause a nuisance, annoyance or danger to anyone. This includes washing, personal belongings and household rubbish not left inside the bins provided. We will charge you for the cost of clearing anything left by you or your household or visitors which is likely to cause a nuisance, annoyance or danger to anyone.”
  2. “You must not do anything which is, or which is intended to, or which is likely to be a nuisance or danger to other people, or which causes damage to our property or the property of our tenants and lessees, their families, lodgers or visitors. For example, you must not…block any Communal Area, either by standing or sitting there or by leaving gas cylinders and other hazardous items, rubbish, prams, bicycles or other objects there.”

4.     “Communal/Public Area Misuse” is also listed as a ASB category. Under the policy, the landlord “recognises that one of the most effective ways to tackle ASB is to take a preventative approach and early intervention is the key. Lambeth … will use a range of prevention measures as it feels appropriate…”

5.     The ASB policy allows the landlord to close an ASB case after three months if “the nuisance has ceased and no further complaints have been received for three months (resolved).”

6.     The landlord has advised this Service that its Corporate Complaints Policy, which is summarised on its website, was applicable to this complaint.  The Corporate Complaints Policy confirms that:

  1. Local Resolution
    1. “All new complaints will be dealt with at the Local Resolution stage (unless there is a reason for the complaint to be considered at a higher level i.e. due to the urgent nature of the complaint or the vulnerability of the individual concerned). Services should allocate Local Resolution complaints to officers of an appropriate level who have the authority to resolve a complaint and apply a remedy, where appropriate. This would normally be the service manager.”
    2. “A full written response should be sent to the customer within twenty working days of receipt of their complaint by the council.”
  2. Final Review

i.   “If the customer is unhappy with the outcome of their Local Resolution complaint they have the right to have their complaint reviewed by the Corporate Complaints Unit. The Corporate Complaints Unit investigates complaints on behalf of the Chief Executive and will carry out a review of the complaint, independent of the service being complained about.”

ii.  “A full written response should be sent to the customer within twenty-five working days.”

7.     The landlord had provided this Service with its Housing Management Complaints Policy (rebranded March 2016) when providing information on other cases.  It is not clear why this policy did not apply to this case.  However, this has not had a material impact of the assessment of this complaint as the Housing Management Complaints Policy too has a 20 working day target response time at the Local Resolution Stage and does not stipulate a target response time at the Review stage.

8.     The timescales in the landlord’s policy do not reflect the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord operates complaint handling processes which cover a range of services, and has confirmed through its Complaint Handling Code self-assessment that it now aims to respond to housing complaints within overarching corporate timescales.

Summary of Events

9.     The resident is a leaseholder in a block of flats. A member of staff from the landlord’s cleaning contractor provides a concierge service for three blocks, including the resident’s. The purpose of the service as defined in the Estate Cleaning Contract is to maintain the security of the block, provide services to residents, undertake health and safety checks and basic maintenance duties during agreed hours.

10. On 8 March 2020, the resident stated she wished to complain about the service charge for the concierge service. She stated she had been unable to pick up a parcel delivered on 3 March 2020 due to the absence of staff with no indication of where they were and when they would return.  She also stated another parcel for her had been left outside the concierge’s office.

11. On 16 April 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint. It stated it had asked the contractor to investigate, and the contractor had reminded its staff to provide signage when they were not in the office. The landlord advised that block checks were completed twice daily for all three blocks and the contractor would now reintroduce and pin up shift rotas so residents could see who was on duty. The landlord further stated that the contractor had complained to delivery companies who regularly left parcels by the concierge front counter and in front of the office door when the office was unmanned.

12. On or around 11 May 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that all attempts to phone or text the concierge on the number provided to residents failed.  The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it would contact the contractor to raise the resident’s concerns although there is no evidence of the outcome.

13. On 7 October 2020 the resident submitted a formal complaint stating that a neighbour was keeping items in a communal area despite several previous reports about this issue to the landlord. She advised of her intention to withhold her service charge until the matter was permanently resolved.  On 18 October 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had received the complaint on 13 October 2020 and would respond by 10 November 2020. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service that its Estate Service Team carried out spot checks every day between 12 and 18 October 2020 and noticed no “rubbish or obstructions” in communal areas.

14. The landlord responded to the complaint on 6 November 2020.  It noted that the previous housing officer had sent warning letters to the neighbour and that it had now delivered a final warning on 27 October 2020 which stated that if further reports were received, it would transfer the case to the Tenancy Enforcement Team which may take legal action. The landlord further stated that it asked the neighbour to clear items in the communal area and when the caretaker had inspected on 3 November 2020, all items were gone. It advised the resident that she could escalate the complaint.

15. The resident responded on Saturday, 7 November 2020 stating she wished to escalate the complaint as the neighbour had stored items in communal areas that day and that she was unhappy the landlord had not found a permanent solution. The resident advised that she would withhold service charge payments as the issue had been ongoing for a long time. After the resident chased up an acknowledgement of her escalated complaint on 14 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged receipt on 16 November 2020 and advised that it would respond within 20 working days of Monday, 9 November 2020 when it had received the complaint.

16. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 9 November 2020 in response to a letter about her service charge arrears in which the landlord warned that it could contact her mortgage provider. She stated that she did not intend to pay her charge as, firstly, health and safety issues arising from items in communal areas had not been resolved and, secondly, the concierge service was not being provided and was not contactable or responsive to messages, nor did it display the rota. She requested a breakdown of her service charge. In further emails sent on 14 and 18 November 2020 the resident reiterated that she would not pay her service charge until the landlord had fully resolved these two issues. She asked to landlord to follow its complaints procedure, provide a breakdown of her service charge and provide timeframes for responses. She also stated she was dissatisfied that the landlord had contacted her mortgage provider when there was an ongoing dispute.

17. The resident again wrote to the landlord on 17 then 27 November asking it to provide documentary evidence of the rights it was exercising when contacting her mortgage provider, and sent a “final notice” to the landlord on 18 December 2020 asking for it to provide this information. The resident wrote separately on 18 December 2020 to reiterate her request for a breakdown of her service charge.

18. On 4 and 16 December 2020, the resident chased up the response to her complaint of 7 November 2020, stating she would take the complaint further if she did not receive a response within three days. She subsequently completed this Service’s online form on 19 December 2020.

19. On 24 February 2021, this Service asked the landlord to consider the following complaints which were identified from the resident’s contact with this Service:

  1. “How the landlord has handled her reports of neighbours storing personal items in the communal areas causing a fire hazard.
  2. How the landlord has handled her reports of paying charges for a concierge service which is not taking place. Specifically…she has requested a breakdown of her service charges and this has not been provided.
  3. How the landlord has handled her complaints. Specifically, that she requested her complaint was escalated to stage two but the landlord has not responded”.

The landlord subsequently advised the resident it would respond by 24 March 2021. On 27 March 2021 the resident stated that she also wanted the landlord to respond to her complaint about not providing documentary proof of its right to contact her mortgage provider about her service charge arrears.

20. On 18 March 2021 the landlord opened an ASB case in respect of the neighbour storing items in communal areas. On the same day the landlord sent a warning letter to the neighbour and sent a letter to the resident advising her of the action it had taken and asking her to record any further nuisance on diary sheets that were enclosed.  It also suggested mediation.

21. On 19 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint of 24 February 2021, referred by this Service. It stated that its Tenancy Enforcement Team would investigate further the ASB issues the resident had been experiencing from her neighbour and agree an action plan with her. The landlord advised the resident that she could escalate her complaint.  On 23 March and 1 April 2021, the resident asked the landlord to send its final response to the three complaints referred by this Service.

22. In a further exchange of correspondence, the resident advised that she would not complete diary sheets and she thought the cleaners should monitor items in communal areas. On 1 April 2021 the landlord provided photos of a random inspection where no items in communal areas were witnessed, although the resident questioned when the photos were taken. The landlord stated that it would carry out another inspection and update the resident. On 15 April 2021 the landlord carried out another inspection and identified no health and safety issues although a folded drying rack leaning against the wall was observed.

23. On 23 April 2020 the landlord sent a letter to all residents warning them not to leave items in communal areas. It advised it would remove items in internal communal areas within 24 hours of placing a sticker identifying what was to be removed. On the same day the landlord sent letters to the resident and the neighbour inviting them to separate meetings. The resident declined the offer of a meeting and objected to the landlord representing her complaint about items in communal areas as an ASB issue as opposed to fire safety. On 28 April 2021, a final warning was sent to the neighbour.

24. In response to the resident’s wish for the landlord to provide a full breakdown and justification of the service charge for the concierge, the landlord sent the estimate of service charge for 2021-22.  On 7 May 2021, the resident advised that this did not meet her needs.

25. On 18 May 2021 the landlord sent a further response to the complaint of 24 February 2021 accepting that it had not responded to all the issues the resident had raised. 

  1. With regards to the resident’s complaint about a neighbour storing personal items in communal areas, it stated it had responded to the original complaint from November 2020, outlining actions to be taken including warning neighbours and carrying out random visits. It stated that the caretaker had visited on 3 November 2020 and witnessed no items.  The landlord also listed the actions taken in April 2021 after the resident’s report of March 2021, which included a random visit, a block letter, meeting and warning the neighbour in question and updating the resident.
  2. With regards to the resident’s complaint about the concierge service not taking place, the landlord provided a breakdown of the charges by block by way of excel spreadsheets.  The information provided showed:
    1. the contract cost for the area apportioned according to the blocks.
    2. the 2015 summary of cost which explained how the cost was calculated and the amount for the three blocks covered by the resident’s concierge.
    3. The cost for 2019 including the 2019-20 cost and explanation of the service.
  3. With regards to the resident’s complaint about complaint handling, the landlord noted that it had responded to the original complaint of November 2020 at the local resolution stage, but it apologised for the late response to the complaint of 24 February 2021. The landlord noted that the resident had approached this Service without progressing her complaint to the second stage and concluded that it had handled her complaint correctly. The landlord advised the resident that her case was still open but that she could escalate her complaint.

26. On 18 May 2021, the resident responded stating that:

  1. She did not accept the excel spreadsheets provided as a “full breakdown of service charges”, as it did not provide evidence of the service charges claimed by the landlord. She also stated that the spreadsheets did not address the disputed concierge service charge as it did not explain why she was being charged for a service that she did not consider was being provided since March 2020. 
  2. She had escalated her complaint on 7 November 2020 and was informed that the landlord would respond within 20 working days of 9 December 2020.
  3. The landlord had not acknowledged or answered her complaint querying its right to contact her mortgage provider.

In response, on 25 May 2021 the landlord stated that it would send a final stage review with a deadline date of 25 June 2021.

27. On 20 May 2021 the Tenancy Enforcement Team wrote to the resident advising that it had not received completed diary sheets or update for over three weeks and that the ASB case would be put on hold for three months.

28. On 24 June 2021, the landlord responded at Review stage of its complaints procedure:

  1. With regards to the neighbour leaving personal items in communal areas the landlord noted the action taken against the neighbour and that it had advised the resident to keep diary sheets of further incidents.  On 20 May 2021 it advised the resident that it would put the case on hold if she did not make further contact, then it subsequently closed the case as no further contact was made. The landlord also noted that it would open a new case if further incidents were reported.
  2. With regards to the resident’s complaint about service charges, the landlord noted that the resident disputed the breakdown provided but advised that this was how it held the data, therefore it could not supply it in a different format. It noted that the concierge provided the following data:
    1. “Where the concierge station is situated.
    2. The concierge shift pattern.
    3. The concierge opening hours.
    4. Regular staff.
    5. Breakdown of concierge hours per year.
    6. Salary costs and indirect costs.
    7. Concierge costs for a number of financial years with explanations provided.”
  3. The landlord also provided an example of a weekly check report, dated 15 June 2021, for the resident’s block which confirmed that it provided a concierge service.
  4. With regards to its complaint handling the landlord stated that the resident’s initial complaint was handled at the local resolution stage of its complaint process, and that it had considered the three points above after receiving the letter from this Service dated 24 February 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reports that the concierge service was not being delivered

29. The resident initially complained about the concierge service in March 2020, making reference to being unable to collect a parcel and that she paid a service charge.  At that point the landlord took reasonable action to resolve the complaint insofar as it raised her concerns with the contractor and agreed that the contractor should make clear who was on duty.

30. There is no evidence that the resident reported further instances of the concierge not meeting its duties, but she later pursued a formal complaint, asserting in a general sense that a service was not being provided.  Landlords should have adequate monitoring arrangements in place to satisfy themselves that contracted duties are being carried out to a reasonable level. In this case the landlord has weekly check reports, as evidenced by the report dated 15 June 2021 provided to the resident with the second stage response.  However, aside from the report of 15 June 2021, the landlord did not confirm to the resident that it had monitored the concierge service over a period of time, and therefore it failed to address the resident’s substantive concern.

31. The resident in her correspondence of November 2020 complained that the concierge did not respond to calls and messages over the phone or put up the shift rota. The concierge will not always be in the office as he/she has various duties across three blocks.  It is therefore important that residents are able to communicate with the concierge by phone and know who is on duty.  The landlord did not investigate this aspect of the complaint. As such, it did not demonstrate that it had taken steps to satisfy itself that the concierge was generally contactable, which was an important aspect underlying the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for breakdown of her service charge

32. Related to the complaint about the lack of delivery of the concierge service was the resident’s decision to ask for a breakdown of her service charge.  She first requested a breakdown in her email of 9 November 2020.  Under section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 the landlord was obliged to provide a written summary of the costs that made up the service charge within a month as six months had already elapsed since the end of the 2019-20 financial year.  The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request thereby not taking steps to meet its obligation.

33. The resident made a further request for a breakdown of her service charge on 18 December 2020 and, furthermore, this Service noted in the letter of 24 February 2021 that the resident wanted a breakdown of her service charge, with specific reference made to the concierge service. The landlord thereby had further notice to provide the summary of the costs making up the service charge.  However, it did not do so until sending the complaint response of 18 May 2021 which again was outside the one-month timeframe for responding and which therefore was an unreasonable delay.

34. When the landlord did respond, it evidently understood that the resident only wanted details of the costs that comprised the service charge for the concierge service as this was the information it provided.  This was to some degree understandable as the charge for the concierge was the only charge being disputed by the resident.  However, the resident made clear in her response of 18 May 2021 that she wanted a “full breakdown of service charges”, indicating that she wanted the landlord to provide a summary of all costs comprising the service charge. However, again the landlord did not provide this information thereby not taking steps to meet its obligation.

35. With regards to the information provided on the concierge charge, the spreadsheet itemised the costs upon which the service charge was calculated and was in the format held by the landlord’s staff. As such, the landlord took reasonable steps to comply with the resident’s request.  The resident has stated she is not happy with this level of information given that she does not think the concierge service is not being provided at an adequate level.  It is therefore recommended that the landlord asks the resident whether she wishes to exercise her right to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary of the charge for the concierge service and take copies or extracts from them.

The landlord’s response to reports of belongings being stored in the communal area

36. The landlord’s tenancy agreement specifically prohibits items being left in communal areas, which is noted as a category of ASB in the landlord’s ASB policy.  Therefore, it is appropriate that the landlord deals with reports of this type in line with its ASB policy. The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that it takes appropriate and proportionate action to address and seek to resolve reported ASB, in line with the policy.

37. In this case, the resident complained about items being kept in communal areas on 7 October 2020. Upon receiving reports of alleged ASB the landlord first needs to gather evidence to establish whether the behaviour is unreasonable and constitutes ASB. Its procedures must also ensure that it remains impartial and does not seek to apportion responsibility for behaviour until it has established the facts. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord carried out spot checks for “rubbish and obstructions” on receipt of the report. The landlord also raised the report with the neighbour who was considered to be leaving items in communal areas and warned that tenancy action could be taken. This was appropriate as an alleged perpetrator must be given an opportunity to be made aware of reports of ASB, to respond, and where relevant, a chance to put things right.  In doing so, the landlord followed the preventative approach outlined in the ASB policy and demonstrated that it had taken matters seriously.

38. Although the resident wished to escalate her formal complaint on the basis that the issue of items in communal areas had not been resolved, there is no evidence that the resident made further reports until the landlord opened an ASB case in March 2021.  The landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets which was appropriate as completed diary sheets allow landlord to ascertain the nature, location, frequency and impact of alleged ASB. This in turn can inform the further action to be taken. The landlord also took steps to obtain evidence of items being left in communal areas by carrying out two random inspections at this time.

39. It is not clear from the landlord’s records how and to what extent it established that there was an ongoing problem of items being left in communal areas. It is also not clear how the landlord satisfied itself that the resident’s neighbour was, at least in part, responsible. This indicates that the landlord has shortcomings in its record keeping and/or its ability to collate and retrieve records. However, the fact that the landlord in April 2020 wished to interview and warn the neighbour, in conjunction with sending a letter to all residents advising that it would remove items found in communal areas, indicated that it accepted there was an issue requiring its intervention. By taking these actions, the landlord again followed the preventative approach outlined in the ASB policy and demonstrated that it had taken matters seriously.

40. There is no evidence that the resident completed the diary sheets or otherwise reported specific instances of items in communal areas.  It was reasonable that the landlord subsequently closed the ASB case as it had provision to close a case if no reports are received for three months under the policy.  This did not materially disadvantage the resident as the landlord should open a new case if she makes a new report.

The landlord contacting the resident’s mortgage provider without her permission

41. The resident is obliged under her lease to pay her service charge and does not have the right to unilaterally decide to stop payments. It is also a standard term in mortgage agreements that a leaseholder must abide by the terms of the lease. The landlord correspondingly has the right to take steps to recover service charge arrears.

42. Most mortgage deeds will give the lender the specific right to pay rent and service charges on the borrower’s behalf, and to add the money to the mortgage-debt. Mortgage companies can be made aware of any debt, as they will intend to protect their investment to avoid any possible forfeiture of the lease and the loss of their security. Therefore, mortgage-lenders may be prepared to pay arrears of service charge. In accordance with its right to recover service charge arrears, the landlord had discretion to approach the resident’s lender and there is no evidence that it required her permission to do so. It would then be for the lender to decide whether or not to pay off the arrears – in many cases a lender would require a landlord to first apply to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) for a ruling that the service charges have been properly incurred and are payable.

43. The resident asked the landlord to provide documentary evidence of the rights it was exercising when contacting her mortgage provider.  The landlord was not obliged to positively prove to the resident that it had the right to directly contact her lender.  Nonetheless, as it did not respond at all to the resident it missed opportunities to explain its arrears collection procedure, for instance the circumstances when it would contact a mortgage provider.  Correspondingly, it missed an opportunity to possibly restore confidence that it was acting in an appropriate and proportionate manner.

Complaints Handling

44. The resident’s complaint of 7 October 2020, which focussed on the communal area issue, was responded to on 6 November 2020.  Although the response was outside the target timescale of 20 days, the delay was two days and not significant. The landlord received the resident’s escalated Stage 2 complaint on 9 November 2020, and as confirmed by its acknowledgment of 16 November 2020, it should have sent a response within 20 working days, by 7 December 2020. It did not do so despite the resident explicitly pursuing a response, thereby failing to follow its complaints procedure. Furthermore, at no point in its further responses did the landlord acknowledge and provide redress for this failing, thereby missing an opportunity to put things right and learn from the outcomes of the complaint.

45.  In her correspondence on 14 and 18 November 2020, the resident asked that the landlord raise a complaint to address her concerns about the concierge service and the fact it had contacted her mortgage provider. As the resident had expressed concerns about the actions/omissions of the landlord and explicitly raised a formal complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have registered a new complaint at this point to investigate these issues.  However, it failed to do so and again at no point did the landlord acknowledge this failing in its subsequent complaint responses.

46.  The issues that the resident wanted to complain about were contained in this Service’s letter to the landlord on 24 February 2021 and the resident’s email of 27 February 2021. Thereafter, there were further failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. The landlord’s initial response of 19 March 2020 only covered the issue of items in communal areas therefore the landlord failed to address all the complaint issues.  The landlord sent another response at the Local Resolution stage on 18 May 2021 which ensured that the further issues of complaint notified by this Service were addressed; however, the fact that two responses were required caused delay and added to the time and trouble the resident experienced in pursuing her complaint. Additionally, at no point did the landlord acknowledge and respond to the resident’s complaint that it had contacted her mortgage provider.

47. Outside of this complaint, the landlord has advised the Ombudsman that, since October 2020, it has reviewed its complaint case management. This has included planning a casework system upgrade to monitor compliance and reporting which allows for daily performance management and aggregation of trends. In addition, it communicated its intention to restructure its Housing Complaints Team to improve complaint handling. However, it is not known whether these planned changes have taken place.

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its:

  1. Handling of reports that the concierge service was not being delivered.
  2. Handling of the resident’s request for breakdown of her service charge.

49. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its:

  1. Response to reports of belongings being stored in the communal area.
  2. Contacting the resident’s mortgage provider without her permission.

50. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports that the concierge service was not being delivered

51. The landlord did not confirm to the resident that it had monitored the concierge service over a period of time, and therefore it failed to address the resident’s substantive concern about the service not being provided. The landlord also did not demonstrate that it had taken steps to satisfy itself that the concierge was generally contactable, through receiving and responding to calls and messages, and through putting up the shift rota. 

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for breakdown of her service charge

52. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request for a breakdown of her service charge within the statutory timeframe for providing the information.  It also did not provide the full information requested, focussing on the charge for the concierge service.

The landlord’s response to reports of belongings being stored in the communal area.

53. When the landlord received reports of items in the communal area, it took action in line with its ASB policy.  It sought to investigate the issue by carrying out inspections and asking the resident to complete diary sheets. It also took preventative action by raising the issue with and warning a neighbour, and by advising all residents that items could be taken away.

The landlord contacting the resident’s mortgage provider without her permission.

54. In accordance with its right to recover service charge arrears, the landlord had discretion to approach the resident’s lender and there is no evidence that it required the resident’s permission to do so.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

55. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint about items in communal areas when the resident first requested this on 7 November 2020.  It also failed to register the resident’s complaint about the concierge service and contacting her mortgage provider when she first complained about these issues. After this Service referred the resident’s complaints to the landlord on 24 February 2021 the landlord sent two responses at the Local Resolution stage causing delay to the complaint process and exacerbating the resident’s time and trouble. Furthermore, at no point did the landlord acknowledge or respond to the resident’s complaint that it had contacted her mortgage provider.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

56. Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident a total of £275, comprised of:

  1. £75 in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by its failure to adequately address her complaint that the concierge service was not being delivered.
  2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble, caused to her by the failings in its complaints handling.

57. Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must:

  1. Confirm in writing to the resident the contact details of the concierge and the arrangements for residents contacting the concierge.  This should include any service standards for the concierge taking and returning phone calls and messages.
  2. Confirm with the resident what information she wants in respect of her service charge at this point in time and then confirm the date it will provide the information, taking into account its statutory obligation.
  3. Confirm whether the proposed changes to complaint case handling have been implemented and, if so, how this will mitigate the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. If the changes have not been implemented, the landlord should confirm when these will take place.

Recommendations

58. It is recommended that the landlord asks the resident whether she wishes to exercise her right to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary of the charge for the concierge service and take copies or extracts from them.

59. The landlord confirms to the resident the circumstances when it will contact a mortgage provider about service charge arrears, making reference to any relevant policy and procedure as necessary.

60. The landlord reviews its record keeping on tenancy related matters with a view to ensuring that timely records are kept and can be accessed by the relevant members of staff.