Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202101951)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202101951

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

25 March 2022

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

The complaint is about:
1. T he landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of their service charges and increase in charges.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s instructions to market the resident’s property on the resident’s behalf.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The residents occupied a three-bedroom flat under a shared ownership scheme. For ease and clarity, as the residents took turns in corresponding with the landlord, the residents will be referred to as “the resident” and “they”.

The scope of this investigation.

The complaint the resident brought to the Housing Ombudsman Service was the landlord’s delay in providing a breakdown of service charges and increase in rent and service charges. In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, issues that, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, concerned the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge, fall outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, given that there is an alternative specialist property tribunal.
The Ombudsman will investigate service charge complaints where they concern the landlord’s administration and management of the service charge account, and/or where it would be disproportionate to refer the resident to the property tribunal. In this report, the Ombudsman has investigated the landlord’s responses to the resident’s concerns that it did not provide a breakdown of service charges in a timely manner and how the landlord responded to the resident’s report that the rent and service charges increases were excessive. However, the Ombudsman had not investigated whether the service charges in themselves were reasonable or whether the rent increases were correctly calculated. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect, they can seek advice from specialist advice organisation the Leasehold Advisory Service or from a solicitor.

The legal and policy framework

Under the terms of the lease, the resident was obliged to pay rent and ground rent by equal monthly payments in advance. The rent was subject to review as specified by the lease.
The rent could be increased (but not decreased) in accordance with a formula in the lease referencing the retail price index. The landlord’s note attached to the lease stated by way of explanation that if there were no increase in the relevant RPI, (all prices retail index) then the maximum rent increase would be 0.5%. After each review date, the landlord was obliged to serve notice on the resident specifying the amount of the reviewed rent and the rent payable. If the reviewed rent was not agreed, the resident could continue to pay the previous rent, however they would be liable to pay interest on any arrears, should the increase prove to be correct.
The resident was also obliged to pay service charges by equal payments, at the same time as the rent was due. The amount of service charges would be the estimated expenditure likely to be incurred, together with an amount as a reserve towards future expenditure. The expenditure would include the costs of the landlord complying with its obligations under the lease, management, its administrative costs, and outgoings in relation to the estate and costs that the landlord deemed necessary. The amounts would be reconciled after the accounting year end.
The landlord did not have a policy regarding service charges but the landlord informed the Housing Ombudsman Service that it complied with the relevant legislation sections in 18 to 30 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and any other regulatory requirements which apply to variable service charge management.
Broadly speaking, under the legislation, the relevant costs must be reasonably incurred. It also provided to the resident consultation rights in relation to expenditure over a certain amount.
The resident also had the right to inspect the accounts, receipts and other documents supporting the summary and to take copies or extracts from them.
Under the landlord’s resales policy, the landlord stated that it aimed to provide a “consistent and supportive customer service” to residents. It stated that clear and concise communication between all the parties was “essential” throughout the process.
The residents were obliged in the first instance, to sell the property through the landlord who would “facilitate” the sale through its specialist team. If it did not sell the property within a specified time, the shared owner could choose to sell the property on the open market. As the landlord charged a fee, it was “important” that it provided “a professional and efficient service from initial enquiry to legal completion”.
The value of the resident’s share was determined by a RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) valuation. A RICS valuation was valid for 3 months. If a buyer was not found within the original valuation period, then the shared owner would have to pay for a desktop RICS valuation.
The landlord provided a guide on selling. The guide provided a step-by-step process. After obtaining the valuation, the resident should upload forms with proof of address. The guide specified two documents per homeowner from two separate lists. One list included a passport and driving licence while the second list included a mortgage statement and receipted utility bill with reference to a specified period. The guide advised taking professional photographs and said the landlord would organise this through a specified company.
Under the landlord’s complaint policy, the complaints process was a two-stage process. The landlord would only reinvestigate a complaint if:
1. The response received at Stage One was factually incorrect (details of the inaccuracies to be provided by the customer).
2. The response received did not address the initial complaint.
3. The landlord had not considered important information provided in the initial complaint.
4. Actions agreed at Stage 1 have not been completed as agreed.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it would award a sum up to £50 where there was some impact on the complainant. The impact experienced by the complainant could include distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, disappointment. It would award a sum ranging between £51 and £160 for considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. It would award £161 to £350 for “severe lack of ownership and accountability” and where there was “severe long-term impact on the complainant”.

Chronology

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of their service charges and increase in charges.

On 7 November 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident with its revised service charge demand and statement for 2018/2019. It reconciled the estimated charges with the actual charges. It set out the amounts for the block and the estate respectively, as well as the resident’s own share as well as the items it charged for, such as cleaning and lift maintenance.
On 13 February 2020, the landlord provided the resident with a service charge account estimate for the period from 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. The service charge had increased from £43.45 to £79.83 a month and the rent from £618.29 to £636.22 a month. The total amount of rent and service charges payable was £772.25. It enclosed a service charge breakdown which, again, set out the various items it was charging for, such as cleaning, door entry and administration fees. The service charge demands and estimate set out the resident’s relevant rights as required by that legislation.
On 1 April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with a service charge statement of account and a copy of the current 2020/21 estimated budget explaining that it had omitted the ground rent from its calculations which would be amended. The revised monthly total amount was £791.00. It explained there were delays due to the pandemic.
On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord, referencing an ongoing separate complaint, as follows:
1. They requested:
  1. A full breakdown of how the figures were calculated and breakdown of service charge and money spent, from 30 September 2018 when the resident purchased the property, to date. They said they had requested this previously.
  2. A full explanation of why the rent had increased from £730 to £779 in a space of 18 months and had increased twice in that period.
  3. An explanation of why the rent was increased when they were in financial hardship due to the pandemic and they asked what assistance the landlord was offering residents.
2. They had not agreed to the rent increase but the landlord had taken the sum from her account nevertheless. Her partner was self–employed and not working and she was pregnant.
The landlord referred the resident to its complaints team. The resident wrote again to the landlord on 24 April 2020 that the person dealing with the existing complaint had referred her back to the service charge team. This was her sixth request.
They required the following within seven days:
1. A complete breakdown of maintenance that had been carried out and a breakdown of each individual cost where there had been increase.
2. A detailed explanation of why the rent had been increased twice within the last 18 months.
3. The reason for any increase of services from September 2018 to date.
4. An explanation for the rent increase during the pandemic.
The landlord replied on 12 May 2020.
1. It attached the service charge financial statement dated 7 November 2019 and supporting itemised service charge breakdown.
2. It explained that the monthly charge was reviewed on 1 April of each year in line with the terms of the lease. Specified rent was reviewed annually in line with the formula set in the lease.
3. Service charge was reviewed annually by the relevant landlord team.
4. Ground rent was reviewed in line with the terms of the lease.
5. Management fees and the sinking fund were reviewed by the landlord’s senior management, in line with the market rates and condition survey requirements.
6. Since the purchase on 27 September 2018, there had been two rent reviews and of service charge on 1 April 2019 and 1 April 2020.
7. The management fee, sinking fund, and ground rent remained unchanged.
8. The total monthly charge was increased from £703.53 to £735.50 on 1 April 2019, on 1 April 2020 to £791.00, representing a rate of increase of approximately 4.5% and 7.5% respectively.
9. The rent increased from £595.83 to £618.29, then to £636.22 respectively, a 3.8% and 2.9% increase respectively.
10. It considered that the increases were reasonable.
11. It suggested they contact a specified team to assist if the resident experienced hardship during the lockdown period.
12. It apologised for the delay in replying.
The resident replied on 14 May 2020. They requested :
1. All the statements since their moving into the property. This was the 7th request.
2. All correspondence regarding service charges from 27 September 2018 to date. They stated that the statements were contradictory.
3. The demand was not a full breakdown.
4. They did not consider the rent increase of 7.5% to be reasonable or in accordance with government guidelines.
On 2 June 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised for the delay in replying.
1. It had reviewed the records. It explained that there had been three accounting periods since the purchase.
2. It set out the annual service charges apportioned to the property for each year and stated that the annual increase was 15.9% and 54.3% respectively.
3. It set out a breakdown of the estimated charges separating the service charge from the sinking fund, management fee, audit fee, ground rent and rent for the three years 2018 to 2021 and calculating the percentage rises.
4. It acknowledged that the service charge had “seen a relatively high growth rate” and at the time was £1,281.36. it stated that it was within a “reasonable zone” given the size of the property, and the range of services provided to include lift maintenance and concierge services.
5. It was reviewing the block’s third set of service charge accounts for the period 2019/20. It was the first set of service charge accounts for the period which saw a full range of services provided to the block, which were gradually introduced over previous three years. The period 2020/21 would include a full range of charges as some services had not been re-charged to the leaseholders in full. The estimated service charge reflected the gradual introduction of new services to the block’s accounts and a re-charge of the services. It was a “norm” to allow three full accounting periods to pass for the service charge to stabilise.
6. The full range of services and recharged costs were introduced in 2020/21. Consequently, it was anticipating that the period 2023/24 would see a relatively stable estimated service charge and corresponding actual service charge levels.
7. It attached a statement and copies of previous documents it had provided.
8. It could not discuss the resident’s correspondence with a former employee of the landlord due to data protection legislation but would discuss outstanding queries.
9. It did not see the need to refer this matter externally. However, it referred the resident to the Leasehold Advisory Service, an impartial advisory service provided to leaseholders. It provided a link to the service.
There was a gap in the party correspondence in relation to this particular issue until 14 January 2021, when the resident made a formal complaint about the marketing of her property.
The resident’s complaint on 14 January 2021 referred to an increase of her monthly charges. The landlord treated her complaint to include her concerns with the rent and service charge increases.
The landlord replied to the complaint on 26 January 2021.
1. It stated that the total monthly payments had increased by 25.6%, it set out the increases. It cited the original current figure of £772.25. It had not identified inconsistencies.
2. There would be a full review of the year’s expenditure (2020/2021) in the following month and they would be contacted regarding this.
3. It did not agree there had been an increase greater than 13% of the initial 2019 monthly expenditure.
The resident replied on 8 February 2021 as follows:
1. The current charge was £791.00 per month.
2. They requested a detailed explanation of the rise from £703.53 in 2018/9 to £791 in the current year which they had requested in excess of 12 times.
The landlord replied with its final response on 23 March 2021. It stated that the residents’ request to escalate the complaint was in relation to not having received a service charge breakdown. It had provided a full-service charge breakdown on 13 February 2020. It would not escalate the complaint but its response remained as it did on 26 January 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s instructions to market the resident’s property on the resident’s behalf.

On 31 July 2020, the resident signed an instruction to the landlord to sell their property.
The actions in the landlord’s “complaint summary “ dated 25 January 2021, enclosed with the landlord’s email to the resident of 26 January 2021, were reflected in its contemporaneous records. Those actions were summarised as follows: The landlord sent the resident documents for the sale on 4 July 2020. The resident sent their photographs and instruction form on 10 August 2020. The landlord rejected the proof of address as insufficient on 12 August 2020 and chased it with the resident on 18 August 2020. The property was listed as “live” on 27 August 2020.
On 2 September 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident that the resident’s property was on the market. It provided a link to its website. It said the property would go live on its portal as well as other well-known marketing sites. It apologised for the delay. It also invited the resident to check the listing and make any additions and amendments.
On the same day, the resident replied requesting confirmation that their property was on the market and asked to add photographs and amend the description to be “more favourable”. The resident had already experienced delays. The resident asked the landlord to add patio photographs and the landlord’s images of the communal and external areas. The landlord replied to same day to state it had added the patio photographs and that the listings were “live”.
The landlord wrote to the resident on a number of occasions requesting availability for viewings and confirming there were no viewings throughout September. The landlord’s records indicated that it received one enquiry on 18 September 2020, two by 21 September 2020. Professional images were taken on 29 September 2020. On 29 September 2020, according to a telephone note, the resident stated the photos had not been updated since August/September. The landlord stated the description had been changed as requested.
The records showed the landlord responded to four enquiries on 30 September 2020. On or around 5 October 2020, according to the landlord’s records, the landlord confirmed that the photos had been updated on the listing. It also informed the resident that it had chased enquiries. It wrote to the resident again in relation to two further viewings. On 16 October 2020, the landlord gave approval that the property could go onto the open market. According to an email from the landlord dated 21 April 2021, the valuation report expired on 27 October 2020 and it required an updated report.
On 14 January 2021, the resident made a formal complaint as follows:
1. They had contacted the landlord in July 2020 to begin the process of placing the property on the market in order to allow time to sell before the fixed term of their mortgage came to an end. They provided documents including their own photos of the property. Once sent, they constantly chased for updates as to when the property would be placed on the market. They had explained the reason for the urgency. The birth of their baby in August 2020 during the pandemic and the landlord’s delay all caused a stressful situation. They sent their mortgage statement as proof of address and payslip. When the resident contacted the landlord, it informed them that was not sufficient as proof of address. The resident then provided a utility bill. The landlord had advised the resident to obtain a surveyor’s report, which was only valid for 3 months, but by the time the landlord marketed the property, it was more than a month into that period.
2. When the property went on the market, the resident noticed that the description they had provided was not used for the advertisement. The description the landlord used did not show the property in a favourable way and omitted important selling-point details. The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions. The advertisement remained unchanged. It only used four out of the in excess of 20 photos the resident provided. The pictures were also cut in half so the advertisement looked very untidy, unprofessional, and did not show the home in a good light. For example, the bathroom photo just showed the top of the bath and nothing else in the bathroom. The landlord ignored their emails. They had notified the landlord of two other properties it was advertising which were also resales and had been advertised incorrectly. One was advertised as a cheaper price on the website than in the advertisement. Another property was advertised as a 3–bedroom, when, in fact, it was a 2–bedroom flat. The incorrect advertisement had remained unchanged since it was first advertised in February 2020. The landlord was selling a 3-bedroom property advertised opposite theirs. It had used “false advertising”. It was advertised as the same property as the resident’s inside and had used some of the resident’s flat photos) but was £10,000 cheaper and with a 6-month rent free period. However, it was smaller with a different layout inside and out. It was not a true reflection of the property that was available.
3. The advertisements had remained the same as at the date of writing. They considered the conflicting advertisements led to not having a single viewing. Their view was the landlord was seeking to sell its property rather than theirs. They had requested an investigation of why they had had no viewings. On 30 September 2020, a prospective buyer attended the property for a viewing without an appointment. The resident was not prepared. However, despite the inconvenience, they allowed the viewing to go ahead. The person viewing informed the resident that they had “been chasing the landlord for weeks for a viewing” but received an appointment the day before.
4. After six weeks, the resident instructed an agent who informed them it would be difficult to sell the property when the landlord was advertising a property very close by which was smaller but featured pictures from their property. They felt discriminated against given the huge increases in rent over a short period of time, broken promises and “blatant attempts of sabotaging our attempts at selling our home”. They requested that the landlord buy their share back at the current market value as it had not marketed its property fairly. The resident expressed their distress and frustration.
In January 2021, the resident accepted an offer to sell the property.
The landlord replied to the complaint on 26 January 2021. It set out that the complaint was about the service that the resident received on the landlord marketing the property.
1. In relation to the marketing of the property, it sent its selling guide to the resident on 4 July 2020. It had received the required images and forms on 10 August 2020 and it was approved on 12 August 2020. It did request an additional proof of address. There was a delay due to staff leave and this was not processed until 18 August 2020. The property was listed live on 27 August 2020. It concluded that there was service failure in the delay.
2. In relation to the text of the resident’s description being amended, on occasions the description would be amended for the purposes of Search Engine Optimisation (SEO), marketing, and readability. The function of the description was to provide a factual and accurate description of the property. It did not necessarily use a proposed description word for word. Amendments were made to better expedite the sale of the property. It did not use all the photos taken by resident as there were a number of issues with the formatting and quality.
3. All amendments were actioned within a reasonable timeframe.
4. The landlord provided a professional photographic service which photographs were uploaded on 15 October 2020. After the photos were updated four viewings were booked. It concluded that the increased traffic to the listing was due to the professionally–taken images.
5. In relation to the incorrect listing of neighbouring properties, it did not identify errors. It did not prioritise the new builds over resales, and handled sales requests in chronological order unless there were specific extenuating circumstances. It would not falsely represent a neighbouring property in order to devalue another. The lack of interest in the property could not be attributed to a service failure.
6. It accepted that the unexpected viewing constituted a failure of service. The viewing was booked on 29 September 2020 for the following day, however due to an internal failure in communication, it did not inform the residents of it “within a reasonable time”. It apologised for this and understood their frustration and concern. It did not agree the viewer had attempted to contact the landlord prior to being called, as they were on annual leave for that week and would have had an out-of-office response directing the viewer to another member of the team. It did not agree the landlord had deliberately sabotaged viewings of the property.
7. In relation to another listing using pictures from their property, pictures from one property would not be used to advertise another unless the pictures included communal areas or the outside of the building itself.
8. It offered compensation of £75 for the residents’ time and trouble.
On 8 February 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. She set out the monthly figures for the rent and service charges.
2. She requested a “detailed explanation” of the above and the correct percentage increase for both rent and service charge separately, which she had requested in excess of 12 times.
3. She attached evidence of that the landlord had advertised a two-bedroom flat as a 3-bedroom flat.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 March 2021 with its final response. It would only review the complaint in certain circumstances. It set out the criteria from the complaints policy. It would have asked the resident whether it had considered any other detriment which would have changed the amount of compensation it had offered.
The landlord provided additional evidence of misinformation being given when advertising properties. It accepted there was an error when advertising the second property in the block. However, the advertisement had stated the correct number of bedrooms in the main description. It had now corrected the error and it thanked her for bringing this to its attention. It concluded it was due to human error, rather than deliberate false advertisement. It found that the residents’ request for escalation did not meet any of the four grounds for escalation so its decision in its stage one response remained unchanged.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of their service charges and increase in charges.

The resident stated that they had requested a breakdown of the service charges on a number of occasions. This would have pre-dated the evidence provided tot his service by the landlord. The landlord stated that it was unable to access the resident’s correspondence with a previous employee. Given the consequential lack of evidence, the Ombudsman will give the resident the benefit of the doubt and accept that they had made a number of requests for a breakdown of charges.
Some of the delay that occurred after the onset of the pandemic from mid-March could not be attributed to the landlord. However, the evidence showed there was delay prior to then. It was not reasonable for the service charge team of the landlord to refer the resident to its complaints team in relation to her service charge query. This created a further delay and would have been frustrating for the resident. However, the evidence also showed that the landlord had sent to the resident a breakdown of costs with the service charges demands. Those breakdowns set out the services the resident was paying for, such as cleaning and lift maintenance. The breakdown the landlord provided on 2 June 2020 contained information that had been provided to date but it had collated it into one single document.
The reason the landlord gave for not reviewing the parties’ past correspondence was that it was with an employee of the landlord who had left the organisation and therefore there arose an issue of data protection. This explanation was neither appropriate nor satisfactory. Given the correspondence was between the landlord and the resident, it was difficult to see how data protection regulation applied. In any event, the landlord should ensure it retains all correspondence, in order to maintain full records and keep track of its actions.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to explain that the rent was reviewed according to the terms of the lease, it should have provided an explanation and breakdown of its calculation. The rent increase clause in the lease was complex and was only clarified in a limited way by the notes attached to the lease.
While it may have been reasonable to expect the resident’s solicitor to have advised on the terms of the lease, the evidence showed that the landlord did not consider providing the resident with its calculation and there was no evidence of the landlord having done so. However, it was reasonable of the landlord to debit the resident’s account with the increase, as it was entitled to do so, and the resident would have been liable for interest in relation to any arrears and there was no evidence that they had challenged the increase at the time.
It is noted there was no evidence either way of the landlord having sent notification of the increase prior to increasing the rent and giving the resident the opportunity to query the increase sooner than they did. While the legality and correctness of the rent increase is not within the scope of this report, the landlord should have provided an explanation of the rent increase when the resident did query the increase.
While the resident stated that the demands were contradictory, the Ombudsman did not identify any contradiction. The landlord’s initial percentage calculations of the service charge increase were incorrect, however it rectified this in its email of 2 June 2020. However, the landlord’s initial explanation about its service charges was not appropriate. It limited its explanation to the fact the landlord reviewed its service charges annually and the increases were “reasonable”. Merely referring to the percentage increases was not adequate. The increase was significant and required explanation. The correctness of service charges is not assessed by percentage rises but by their reasonableness in nature and amount. It was, however, appropriate of the landlord to explain the increase was due to it having introduced new services and it not having previously recharged for all the services it had provided.
It was reasonable to reassure the resident that the charges would stabilise. However, while its service charge estimates and demands had set out the resident’s rights, it would have been appropriate to remind the resident of their rights under service charge legislation, although it did refer her to the Leasehold Advisory Service. The landlord’s tone of the referral, by stating there was need to refer the matter externally, was unreasonable. It was discouraging, as if seeking advice was adversarial, when it should have been encouraging. The service is a source of helpful information and provides a helpful tool for leaseholders, and landlords, in understanding how to deal with service charges.
The landlord was entitled to increase rent and service charges in accordance with the lease. It was a non-profit organisation and required income in order to provide accommodation and services. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider the resident’s circumstances and consider ways of mitigating the impact of loss of income and increased charges. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord to refer the resident to its specialist team in relation to their financial circumstances.
While the landlord had provided a breakdown of costs, went some way to address the resident’s concerns in their email of 26 June 2020 and to explain the increases, there was some delay in responding to the resident. Moreover, the landlord’s explanation of the increases was not entirely satisfactory. It should have set out the principles of assessing the reasonableness of service charges and considered reminding the resident of their rights of further enquiry, rather than merely stating percentage breakdowns and stating baldly it thought the charges were reasonable. In relation to the rent, it should have set out its calculation, specifically referred to the lease, so that the resident could consider for herself whether the rent increase was in line with the lease.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s instructions to market the resident’s property on the resident’s behalf.

The evidence showed that there was some delay in the marketing of the property between 10 August 2020 and 2 September 2020. Although the landlord referred to the date of 27 August 2020, the evidence of the email of 2 September 2020 indicated that the property went “live” on marketing sites on 2 September 2020. The landlord had set out its requirements regarding the proof of address. The landlord did not provide evidence of what the resident provided in the first instance, therefore there is insufficient evidence for the the Ombudsman to determine who was at fault. As it is for the landlord to provide contemporaneous evidence, the benefit of the doubt is given to the resident. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds that the delay amounted to three weeks.
While it was frustrating for the resident to have wasted a month of their survey report’s validity, the Ombudsman does not find that the delay necessitated the resident to pay for an updated surveyor’s report. That is because there was no offer on the property until January 2021, so the resident would have had to extend it in any event.
Although the sales guidance suggested that the resident should use a professional photographic service, the resident opted to use their own photographs. The landlord’s explanation that the original photographs were not suitable is, in the opinion of the Ombudsman, reasonable. The landlord did not provide evidence whether the resident’s requested amendments were made, which the resident had disputed. However, the landlord’s explanation that the resident’s text was amended, in order to better promote the property on the internet, was also reasonable, given it was reasonable to consider SEO. The landlord’s explanation that the new photographs improved the saleability was reasonable given that the enquiries increased, though the numbers of enquiries would have been also affected by the market. It had invited the resident to check the listing and add any additions and amendments.
There was insufficient evidence to determine how properties nearby were advertised. The landlord accepted that there was an error in one of the advertisements. It is disputed when it said it would amend the advertisement accordingly. The Ombudsman gives the resident the benefit of the doubt, given the lack of evidence. However, there was no evidence that these issues slowed the sale of the property, no evidence that the landlord deliberately promoted their rather than the resident’s property, and no evidence that the landlord sabotaged the resident’s sale.
While the resident’s anxiety to sell the property was understandable, and while there was a delay and issues with the marketing of the property, the Ombudsman does not find that this unduly delayed the sale of the property, taking into consideration the market conditions prevailing at the time. The resident’s estate agency also took two months to secure an offer. Indeed, the resident cited a similar property had been on the market for nearly a year, since February 2020.
The landlord accepted it was at fault in relation to the resident not receiving notification of the first viewing but that this did not amount to service failure. That was reasonable. While frustrating for the resident, such occurrences are not unusual with property viewings. It was reasonable that the landlord checked the resident’s availability and updated the resident on a regular basis.
It was noted that the landlord had promised a professional service and its guide and resale policy gave assurances of a professional service. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been more proactive in advising the resident sooner about the poor quality of the photographs.
While there was a short initial delay and the landlord could have been more proactive, the Ombudsman finds that the resulting impact was in relation to the resident’s frustration, time and trouble rather than it unduly slowed the sales process.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s offer of £75 in compensation was reasonable to take account of the resident’s frustration, time and trouble. As well as being in line with the landlord’s own compensation policy, the offer was also in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedy guidance. Guidance on remedies (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). While the process was frustrating, particularly in light of the resident’s circumstances, there was no evidence that the overall impact on the resident resulted in significant delay or financial loss.

Complaint handling

While the evidence showed that the landlord had provided a service charge breakdown, it was inappropriate that the complaint response of 26 January 2021 contained inaccuracies and contradicted its email of 2 June 2020. It set out the inaccurate figure for the current monthly payment and it applied different calculations. It should have referred to its own email of 2 June 2020. Moreover, the resident’s reasons for escalation were that they wanted an explanation for the increase. That aspect was ignored in the second complaint response. The response was unreasonable in that it was cursory and confusing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of their service charges and increase in charges.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress offered in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s instructions to market the resident’s property on the resident’s behalf.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While the landlord had provided a breakdown in relation to the residents’ service charges, there was some delay in its responses. Its responses were not as complete as they could have been and it should have provided the calculation it applied to the rent increase. Moreover, it was not appropriate to ascribe data protection regulations as a reasons not to access or review correspondence. However, there was no evidence of a long-term effect on the resident.
There was some delay in the marketing of the property and the landlord could have been more proactive in its advice. However, there was no evidence that the landlord’s failures caused undue delay to the sale of the resident’s property.
The landlord’s complaint response contained inaccuracies, did not address the essence of the resident’s complaint, and contradicted its previous correspondence.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £325 within 28 days as follows:
1. The sum of £250 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a breakdown of their service charges and increase in charges.
2. The landlord pays the resident £75 in relation to its complaint handling.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the order to the Housing Ombudsman Service with the above orders within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £75 within 28 days it offered to the resident in relation to its handling of the marketing of their property, if it has not already done so.
The landlord should ensure that its explanations regarding service charges and rent refer specifically to, and is in the context of, the relevant legislation and that it provides a calculation in relation to rent increases, either as a matter of course or at the request of a resident. This applies in particular where a rent increase involves a complex calculation and reference to the RPI.
The landlord should take a more proactive role in relation to the content of its advertising, ensuring it is of adequate quality and accuracy.
The landlord must ensure it retains its records, including emails sent by previous employees, in order to ensure it maintains complete records and is able to track its actions.