Acis Group Limited (202108528)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108528

Acis Group Limited

4 May 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge, including its decision to change the service charge invoicing date.
    2. The standard of services provided in respect of which a service charge is levied.
    3. An increase in the cost of the resident’s service charge.
    4. The landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
    5. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder of the property, a 2-bedroom ground floor flat purchased in 2012. The landlord is the freeholder.
  2. The resident reports that since 2019 she has raised concerns with her landlord about the accuracy of service charge invoices and what she considers to be excessive increases. The resident has also raised concerns about the standard of gardening and cleaning services, and a failure to complete communal repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint about excessive increases to her service charge for the year April 2021 to March 2022, and a change in invoice date, which she noted had been made without prior consultation or notice to residents. She also complained that she had received a demand for payment in full in March 2021, when she had previously been paying by monthly instalments on receipt of the invoice each September. The resident requested evidence from the landlord to justify the increases, in the form of calculations, contractor invoices and receipts. As part of the complaint the resident reported outstanding communal repairs to a damaged fence, gate and security light and fly-tipping around the bin store. She noted that the communal repairs had been reported previously and asked why these were not identified during the landlord’s inspections.
  4. In response to the complaint, the landlord maintained that the change in invoicing date was reasonable and in line with the terms of the resident’s lease. It agreed that a letter demanding full payment should not have been sent and accepted the resident’s offer to pay by monthly instalments. The landlord responded to the queries raised and assured the resident that she would only pay for actual costs incurred, with a credit or debit applied to her account retrospectively if the final charges differed from the invoice estimates. The landlord confirmed it had raised the reported repairs and arranged clearance of the bin store. It noted that site inspections were carried out weekly. The landlord emphasised that its procurement processes ensured value for money, attached a copy of its insurance policy statement, and offered to arrange a meeting between the resident and the Neighbourhoods Team.
  5. The resident referred the complaint to this Service and subsequently raised a second complaint about ongoing poor standards of cleaning and grounds maintenance and outstanding communal repairs. The landlord acknowledged that it had previously misinformed the resident that the site was inspected weekly, when it was in fact inspected on a quarterly basis. The landlord committed to arrange the meeting with the Neighbourhood Team that had been offered previously, and to follow up the complaint about cleaning and grounds maintenance with its contractors.
  6. She maintains that she is dissatisfied with its handling of the issues raised in her complaint. 

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of a rent or service charge increase. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the authority to providing a binding determination as to whether service charges are recoverable.
  2. The resident has complained about increases to her service charge in the year April 2021 to March 2022, which she believes are unreasonable and have not been adequately explained or evidenced by the landlord. This aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(g), and the resident has made an application to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (FTT) for a binding determination on this matter.
  3. In addition, paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme provides that the Ombudsman will not consider complaints concerning matters that are, or have been, the subject of legal proceedings and where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of those proceedings.
  4. In the resident’s application to the FTT she has requested a determination on whether the calculation of her service charge is reasonable and whether the change in invoice date was lawful. As part of these proceedings, the resident will have the opportunity to raise her concerns about the standard of cleaning and grounds maintenance, in relation to the reasonableness of the charges. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration of her service charge and the standard of services is therefore outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, in accordance with paragraph 39(h).
  5. This report has therefore not investigated the aspects of the complaint which have been noted on this section as falling outside of our jurisdiction to consider.

Handling of communal repairs

  1. Under clause 5 of the resident’s lease, the landlord is required to ‘repair redecorate renew and … improve … the Common Parts’. As part of the formal complaint the resident reported outstanding communal repairs and maintenance issues to fencing, a gate, a security light, and the bin store, which it is not disputed form part of the ‘Common Parts’.
  2. On receipt of the complaint the landlord took prompt action to raise works orders to complete the repairs and arranged clearance of the bin store. It provided the resident with the job numbers and estimated timescales for completion of the works. It is understood that the bin store area was cleared by the date stated in the stage 1 response, and that the security light was repaired. The initial action taken by the landlord in relation to this aspect of the complaint was reasonable and demonstrated commitment to resolving the issues.
  3. The resident states that she had previously reported the communal repairs to the landlord, and that the fence and gate had been in a condition of disrepair for a year prior to the formal complaint. No evidence has been provided to this investigation to show when these issues were first identified or reported, and the landlord has not provided copies of its communal repairs records. In the absence of additional evidence, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the repairs had been reported prior to the formal complaint of 3 May 2021.
  4. The landlord indicated that there was a 90-day repairs target for the routine repairs to the fence and gate, which would have meant completion by the end of August 2021, taken from the date of the resident’s formal complaint. As of 26 August 2021, when the landlord issued its final response to the second complaint, the repairs and not been completed. The landlord indicated that an additional inspection would be required and that there would be a further delay in completing the works.
  5. The landlord failed to adequately manage the resident’s expectations about the time it would take to complete the fence and gate repairs. The landlord should have identified when the repairs were first reported and provided a clear indication of when the works would be completed. If the landlord first became aware of the repairs as a result of the formal complaint, it should have updated the resident when it became aware that the repairs would not be completed within 90 days. The fact that it only informed her on 26 August 2021 of the reason for the ongoing delays and did not provide an updated estimate of the completion date further increased her frustration. The landlord confirmed that a further inspection of the fence and gate was required but noted in its final complaint response that repairs were delayed because of the pandemic and supply issues due to Brexit. 
  6. Overall, a timeframe of over 3 months to complete routine repairs to a fence and gate was unreasonable. The landlord has failed to evidence the reason for the delay, beyond generally stating that its service had been affected by Brexit and the pandemic. The landlord has not provided copies of internal emails or communications with its contractors to support its explanation.  
  7. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the communal repairs, as it has failed to evidence that the delay was beyond its reasonable control and the resident was not kept updated about the status of the repairs. An award of compensation is therefore appropriate, in recognition of the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident, and the time and trouble taken to pursue her complaint, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Complaints handling

  1. Although the landlord provided a comprehensive response to the initial complaint, it did not apologise for its failure to respond to the resident’s query of 25 April 2021, which would have been appropriate as it admitted that this was due to a technical issue.
  2. The landlord also failed to provide an adequate response to the resident’s complaint that communal repairs had been outstanding for over a year, that they had been reported previously, and that the landlord had failed to identify these repairs at its regular site visits. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated this aspect of the complaint, despite it being explicitly referred to in the stage 2 escalation request of 25 May 2021. It is not only important to progress the resolution of the issue raised but also to reflect on what went wrong and whether the landlord’s handling of the matter could have been better. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to learn from the outcome of complaints.
  3. The landlord did not follow-up on its offer to arrange a meeting between the resident and the Neighbourhood Team. It also provided inaccurate information about the frequency of inspections, which was not corrected until a second complaint was submitted. The landlord’s commitment to meet with the resident was important, as it formed part of the resolution to the complaint. Its failure to do so and the inaccuracy of the information provided in the response undermined its sincerity and the attempt to repair the relationship with the resident.
  4. The Ombudsman considers that there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling, as its investigation into the communal repairs was inadequate, its complaint response inaccurate, and it did not follow through with the resolution offered. An award of compensation to reflect this service failure is therefore appropriate, in line with this Service’s Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s administration of her service charge is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 39(h) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the standard of services provided by the landlord is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about an increase in the cost of her service charge is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of communal repairs.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £150 in recognition of the failings identified in its handling of the communal repairs and the stress and inconvenience caused.
    2. Pay the resident £50 compensation in recognition of its poor complaints handling.
    3. Provide evidence to this Service of compliance with our orders.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Provide training to staff involved in complaints handling about the importance of investigating and responding to all aspects of a complaint, the need for accuracy in complaint responses, and ensuring that commitments to take specified action are followed-up.