Thames Valley Housing Association Limited (202110462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110462

Thames Valley Housing Association Limited

10 April 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information and documentation relating to service charges.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s associated handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord at the property from 9 November 2018.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure, whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint at stage one, within 10 working days. Where a complainant is dissatisfied with the outcome of their complaint, they may request escalation of the matter to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure and the landlord aims to review the complaint and provided a response within 20 days thereafter. Where the landlord requires longer to respond to a complaint, it will let the complainant know, providing a revised timescale.
The landlord’s compensation guidance sets out circumstances in which compensation may be offered and guidance amounts. The landlord may offer compensation in circumstances of service failure on its part and the guidance specifies that individual circumstances and emotional impact should also be considered.
For a ‘low’ service failure, the guidance recommends compensation between issuing an apology and £50. For a ‘medium’ service failure, a guidance amount of between £51-£160 is suggested and for ‘high’, between £161-£350.

Summary of events

Following receipt of a service charge statement in September 2019, stating that the resident owed £1118.77 for the 2018-2019 financial year, around 11 October 2019, the resident emailed the landlord. In her email she questioned a disparity between the service charge breakdown and service charge statement for 2019-2020 financial year and requested the accounts, receipts and other documents to support the summary related to each item on the service charge statement, naming some specific discrepancies.
The resident received an automated email response to her enquiry, stating that she would receive a response within the next 10 working days. However, no response was received by the resident and three months later, in January 2020, she received a revised service charge statement for the same financial year of 2018 -2019 stating that she owed £390.14. Having still not received the written summary of the costs and break down of calculations relating to the service charge statement, the resident remained unsure about how the figure had been arrived at.
Three months after that, in April 2020, the resident received a telephone call from the landlord regarding the money for service charges that it said she owed. The resident explained that she had requested a written summary of the costs and break down of calculations relating to the service charge statement (and associated documentation) for the 2018-2019 financial year. The landlord advised that it would look into the matter and send revised figures. No such revised figures or information was received by the resident.
On 7 October 2020, the resident received the service charge statement, for the following financial year, 2019-2020, stating that she owed a further £345.69. As with the previous year, the resident emailed the landlord, noting a disparity between the service charge breakdown and the service charge statement. She again requested clarity and supporting information in respect of the service charges, specifically, the accounts, receipts and other documents to support the summary related to each item on the service charge statement. The resident asked for information and documentation in respect of the following items, stating the discrepancy:
1. External cleaning; service charge breakdown = £13.92 and service charge statement = £21.10.
2. Door entry and entry phones; service charge breakdown = £32.52 and service charge statement = £225.
3. Statutory testing and servicing; service charge breakdown = £42.84 and service charge statement = £423.25.
4. Refuse services; service charge breakdown = £3.12 and service charge statement = £21.05.
5. Pest control; service charge breakdown = £0 and service charge statement = £23.89.
The resident also asked what £12,489.02 of the sinking fund was spent on, requesting that the landlord provide a break down and summary.
On 22 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, asking her to clarify the property address, which she did the following day.
Around three weeks later, on 16 November 2020, the landlord emailed the resident, apologising for the delay. It advised that the initial statement was incorrect and provided a new one, stating that the resident actually owed £160.87 and said it had made enquiries in respect of the sinking fund. With her questions unanswered and documentation still not provided, on the same date, the resident replied to the landlord advising that there remained discrepancies and asked for clarity.
The following month, on 19 December 2020, the resident followed up on her request. She cited the landlord’s obligation to provide the documentation requested within one month, in accordance with Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, adding that she made the request on 7 October 2020. On 14 January 2021, the resident re-sent her email of 19 December 2020 to the landlord.
On 15 January 2021, the landlord responded, apologising for the delay and providing some invoices relating to cleaning, pest control and refuse services, advising that it was awaiting invoices for other requested items and said that an amended breakdown would be provided the following week.
On 21 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord asking it to also provide the breakdown that pertains to her property specifically and reiterated that she was awaiting clarity on the sinking fund. No response was provided by the landlord to this email.
Two months later, on 18 March 2021, the resident received an automated voicemail from the landlord, advising that it wanted to speak with her. The resident called the landlord and after multiple failed attempts, she was advised the following day, on 19 March 2021, that the landlord would call her back. The resident did not receive a call back as advised.
On 29 March 2021, the resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord about its handling of her requests for information pertaining to service charges, since October 2019, as well as her query about the sinking fund, setting out a chronology of her contact and requests since that time and her dissatisfaction with the continued lack of response from the landlord. The resident stated that the accounts in question were 2018-2018 and 2019-2020 and added that she had now received a 2020-2021 bill, which also contained discrepancies.
On 30 March 2021, the landlord acknowledged the complaint, advising a response would be sent “as a matter of urgency”.
On 31 March 2021, the landlord emailed the resident and advised that it would be in a position to provide a date by which a substantive response would be received, on 6 April 2021.
On 6 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, explaining that delay had been attributable to staff changes, over time and asked for resident for some clarity as to her requests, as it said she had referred to discrepancies but not been specific. The landlord also advised it would be carrying out a recruitment exercise and there would also be a period of staff annual leave, so it would not be able to pick the matter up again until 19 April 2021.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, advising it now hoped to be in a position to respond by 27 April 2021. In that email, the landlord advised that should it not be able to respond within ten days, it would contact the resident to agree a new response timescale.
On 16 April 2021, the resident provided the landlord with the clarity it requested on 6 April 2021.
On 23 April 2021, the landlord emailed the resident, apologising for the delay. It advised that the service charge breakdown for 2019-2020 was correct but the end of year statement for ‘statutory testing/servicing’ and ‘communal utilities’ was incorrect due to the printing of PDFs on the account needing to be rerun; it said it had attached a revised copy.
The following day, on 24 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising that the attachment was the same as it had previously provided and there remained discrepancies. The resident reiterated that she had not received the information and documentation she had requested, including in respect of the sinking fund and expressed that she was now also confused as to where her complaint was in the landlord’s complaints procedure and who was dealing with it. Having not received a reply to this email, on 28 April 2021, the resident requested escalation of the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure.
On 14 May 2021, the landlord telephoned the resident and asked if she had received the information she had requested, to which she replied that she had not. The landlord said it would chase this up.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord responded at stage one of its complaints procedure, in an email entitled ‘Final Response’. In its response, the landlord advised that having spoken to its ‘Service Charge Team’, it was aware that a holding response to the resident’s queries was sent to her on 31 March 2021 and that it said it had intended on contacting her on 6 April 2021 to provide an update, due to a large number of historical points requiring investigation, which it did.
The landlord acknowledged that the update on 6 April 2021 did not address all of the resident’s queries, however, as further information was required from her, which she provided on 16 April 2021. The landlord apologised on behalf of the ‘Service Charge Team’ citing a “high volume of queries” and said that a response date of 17 June 2021 had been “recommended”.
It apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its poor service, partially upholding the complaint and offering £55 compensation, comprised of £30 for the resident’s time and trouble and £25 for poor complaint handling.
On the same date, the resident responded to the stage one complaint response, asking it to clarify what exactly had been responded to and stated that she had requested escalation to stage two of the complaints process prior to this, on 28 April 2021.
The following day, the landlord advised that a stage one complaint response had to be provided before a stage two could be and that if she remained unsatisfied by 17 June 2021, then the matter would be escalated to stage two of the complaints process.
There was further correspondence between the landlord and resident between 21 and 27 May 2021, with the landlord’s correspondence containing conflicting information, stating to contact it if matters were not resolved, as well as stating in another email that it could not help her further. A new response time was ultimately provided, of 17 June 2021, however.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 June 2021 about her complaint and it advised her that it now needed to extend the timeframe in which to provide a response, to 9 July 2021.
On 1 July 2021, the landlord emailed the resident with the ‘End of Year Account Service Charge 2019-20’ document and provided an explanation in respect of the sinking fund. The landlord advised that it was dealing with the complaint and that different members of staff were assisting with gathering the outstanding information.
On 16 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about the information and her complaint. In response, it advised that it needed more time and would respond by 30 July 2021.
On 9 August 2021, the landlord responded at stage two of its complaints procedure. The complaint was upheld, with the landlord apologising for the poor service the resident received in terms of the delay in providing her with the information she requested and said that it would look at its service levels and how it could make improvements in the future.
The landlord offered a total of £190 compensation, comprised of £150 for the time and effort the resident had put into getting answers to her queries and complaint and £40 for failures in its complaints handling at both stages one and two, in respect of delay.
The resident remained dissatisfied, stating in her complaint to the Ombudsman that she has still not received the information she requested in respect of service charges from 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 or the sinking fund.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives lessees the right to inspect “accounts, receipts and other documents” supporting a summary of service charge expenditure. A request must be made by the lessee within six months of receiving the summary of relevant costs, with the landlord having one month to provide the information. Failure for the landlord to provide this information within that time, without reasonable excuse, is a summary offence and can attract a fine of £2500.
The resident has referred within her correspondence to the landlord, that she made an information and documentation request in accordance with the aforementioned Act and that the landlord failed to honour this within the given timeframe, as it is obliged to do. The landlord has not specifically referenced the Act but it has on occasion given reasons for delay, including issues with staffing, the historical investigations needed, recruitment exercises and annual leave, however, the Ombudsman, as an alternative dispute resolution service, is unable to assess whether those reasons constitute a ‘reasonable excuse’, in law; this would be a matter for the courts.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. As such, this aspect of the complaint is not within the remit of this investigation, which will focus on the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s request for information and its associated complaint handling but not whether it breached its statutory obligation, as described.

Handling of requests for information, documentation and clarity

The landlord inappropriately failed to respond to the request from the resident to provide information, clarity and documentation in respect of the service charges for the 2018-2019 when she asked for this around 11 October 2019 and it continued to fail to do this despite assurances that it would follow this up for her when she chased the matter the following year, in April 2020.
The delay was such that the new financial year of 2019-2020 then became encompassed, with the resident making the same request in request of this later period of time on 7 October 2020, which was similarly extensively delayed. In respect of this later request, however, there is clear delay and difficulties in the landlord actioning the request, whereas there is no evidence of the landlord attempting to action the previous request at all; a request which appears to have been overlooked or disregarded by the landlord for reasons unknown.
In respect of this latter request, the resident specifically set out her queries and the discrepancy in accounts for various charges at an early stage and yet still, the landlord inappropriately asked her to clarify her specific request six months later, on 6 April 2021, having been in contact on several occasions in the interim, yet not asked this. This contributed to further built-in delay and evidences a lack of oversight and ownership of the matter, as well as internal communication concerns.
Although the landlord provided a revised service charge statement to the resident on 16 November 2020, there remained concerns about disparity in figures which went unanswered and although it then provided some invoices on 15 January 2021, these did not cover all of the areas raised by the resident and did not constitute a comprehensive response to her request.
Neither the 16 November 2020 or 15 January 2021 contacts from the landlord addressed the specific queries and discrepancies the resident had pointed out, nor did they provide the supporting documentation as requested. Neither did the landlord address the resident’s query regarding the sinking fund, despite it stating that it would do this and be in touch. The sinking fund query was not responded to at all until 1 July 2021, after the landlord’s stage one response to the complaint and similarly did not constitute a full response to the query, instead only proving a brief explanation and no breakdown or supporting documentation, as had been requested.
The landlord’s continued delay and non-response to the resident over time was unacceptable and inappropriate. Moreover, the later reasons for delay in April 2021, do not present as reasonable; citing interviewing and annual leave as further cause for delay in addressing an enquiry (and subsequent complaint) which had been outstanding since October 2019.
Whilst it is appropriate to adjust incorrect calculations in respect of service charges, the incorrect and revised statements and partial responses sent in respect the landlord responding to particular charges only, were sent only following the resident’s questioning, which did not serve to instil trust in the landlord’s accounting. There was a lack of a comprehensive and concluded overview of the accounts and all of the discrepancies raised, which left the matter unfinished and with continued doubt. This situation was undoubtedly exacerbated by the landlord’s reference to having attached an updated PDF document of accounts on 23 April 2021 which was not actually updated as it stated. There seemed to be confusion on the part of the landlord and the overall response lacked accountability, with different members of staff involved, large gaps in time between contact and a lack of comprehensiveness in each response, coupled with errors.
There were multiple members of staff involved in the request, yet not one person overseeing the matter and ensuring collation of documentation and information was gathered within a reasonable timeframe and provided to the resident, as well as keeping the resident updated and responding to her contact. This understandably caused frustration and inconvenience on the part of the resident, who spent a protracted period of time having her requests ignored, not fully responded to and/or significantly delayed.
In all the circumstances of the case, there was a significant service failure in the landlord’s overall handling of the resident’s reports of discrepancy in the service charge accounts and requests for documentation pertaining to the service charges. The landlord delayed in providing information, did not address specific issues the resident raised and was unable to provide itemised figures pertaining to her property, as requested.
The Ombudsman is unable to make findings about the level of service charges, an issue more appropriately handled by the tribunal, however, given the failings identified here, an order of compensation beyond what the landlord offered, to reflect the resident’s frustration and inconvenience in progressing her case is considered appropriate. An order has also been included below for the landlord to address the resident’s specific concerns about her service charge.

Complaints handling

The landlord’s response to the complaint at both stages one and two were significantly delayed, without explanation. Whilst the landlord said it would learn from the delays, it did not specifically state what this learning would look like or demonstrate learning from the period between stage one and two of the complaints procedure, where there was an opportunity for it to do so and show that it had meant what it said and had taken the matter seriously.
There was a lack of expectation management in respect of the landlord’s handling of the complaint overall, with it saying it would respond “as a matter of urgency” in one of its emails to the resident, rather than stating that it would respond within the timescales set out in its complaint policy or agreeing a revised timeframe, which left the resident unsure of what stage her complaint was at and who was dealing with it.
Repeated extensions to both providing the information and documentation requested (as discussed above) as well as in respect of formal complaint responses were wholly inappropriate and unreasonable in all of the circumstances. There is no reason as to why the complaint responses were so delayed and the delay is aggravated by the responses themselves failing to demonstrate a thorough investigation of the issues, or to resolve the matter.
The purpose of a stage one complaint is to investigate a matter, whereas stage two is to review the handling of the complaint at stage one and so it is ordinarily necessary for the stage one response to have first taken place. The landlord was not obliged to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaints process without it having issued a stage one complaint response although the resident’s frustration which led to her requesting this early was understandable.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to impose a timeframe on the resident in its stage one response for escalation as it did, as a complainant is able to request escalation of a complaint immediately and it is ordinarily the case that a deadline is set within which a complainant may request escalation, rather than the other way around. This deadline appears to have been informed by the landlord speaking to its service charge team who were said to be collating the information requested.
However, the deadline of 17 June 2021 was referred to as being “recommended” by the landlord, which makes things further unclear – it is not known whether this is a date the complaints team recommended to the service charge team or the service charge team recommended to the complaints team; this again goes to the point of a lack of oversight and ownership of the complaint.
It was appropriate that the landlord recognised in its stage two response to the complaint that its original offer of compensation was inadequate given the failings in service which it acknowledged. The level of compensation was insufficient still as it did not reflect the extent of the resident’s distress and frustration in relation to the service charge figures she had been provided with, nor her difficulties in progressing her complaint.
The complaint remains unresolved, with the resident having still not received the information and documentation requested and the discrepancies she highlighted remain unredressed; no level of compensation redresses this. Due to the nature of the complaint and the passage of time, coupled with the failure to resolve it, it is one that is likely to perpetuate each year and there has been no conclusion or way forward arrived at, at this point, which is problematic.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaint about its handling of the resident’s request for information and documentation pertaining to service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint.

Reasons

There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of requests for information and documentation pertaining to service charges insofar as it was significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s queries and requests and did not provide the information, clarity or documentation requested.
There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling insofar as its response to the complaint was significantly delayed at both stages one and two of its complaints procedure, with the landlord building in an unnecessary delay to escalation to stage two. There was also a lack of investigation of the complaint and no resolution of the issue.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £500 compensation, comprised of:
1. £300 for the service failures identified with its handling of the resident’s information and documentation requests about the service charges.
2. £200 for the service failures identified with its complaints handling.
The landlord to evidence compliance of this order to the Ombudsman within four weeks of this determination.
The landlord to comprehensively address all of the resident’s queries pertaining to service charges, which will include providing the information and documentation requested, as well as providing clarity and any relevant information regarding the sinking fund. This will require the resident to first clearly set out a list of outstanding queries and requests for documentation, in one document.
The landlord to evidence compliance with the above order within four weeks of the date that the resident provides the required information. In order for the landlord to be able to manage this compliance issue, it is expected that the resident will provide this information within two weeks of this determination.