Tower Hamlets Community Housing (202008313)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008313

Tower Hamlets Community Housing

31 October 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 response to the resident’s concerns about the services it provides and the service charges for these.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared-ownership leaseholder. The property is a flat in a block on a street maintained by the landlord.
The lease sets out the contract between the parties. The landlord is obligated to maintain the common parts of the estate. The resident is obligated to pay a proportion of the service charge, including costs reasonably incurred by the landlord in respect to maintenance and services it provides in respect to the common parts. The service charge is variable and the leaseholder is asked to pay towards estimated costs, for which excesses or deficits are consolidated every year.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a two stage complaints policy. It aimed to respond at stage one within 15 working days, after which a stage two panel review could be requested within 15 working days of the response. If the complaint was not escalated for any reason, the landlord aimed to explain why within 15 working days. The landlord only considered complaints about issues that occurred within six months of when a complaint was made. The landlord’s complaints policy detailed that if both parties agreed, mediation that involved an independent mediator was one option it used to resolve complaints.

Summary of events

Around June 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about a bin in the communal area, which this investigation understands related to the bin location and how it had been installed. In July 2019, the resident noted to the landlord that the bin was gone, but he raised dissatisfaction related to the bin installation and a lack of communication about the issue. He raised dissatisfaction with service charge increases, said he did not feel service charges represented good value for money, and said the landlord was possibly in breach of the contract. The resident requested a meeting to discuss his concerns, and the landlord agreed to arrange a meeting with senior staff. The resident subsequently cancelled the meeting and after initial discussions to reschedule it, he asked for it to be placed on hold due to his lack of availability.
In September 2019, the resident raised dissatisfaction to the landlord that services in regard to the service charge were not being delivered in line with his expectations. He raised concerns about the bin installation; the lack of maintenance of communal gardens for over a year; and a lack of response to some correspondence.
The same month, the landlord responded. It explained that some staff had taken unplanned absence and it had endeavoured to follow up their outstanding work. It acknowledged that the resident’s email showed it had not fully achieved this, for which it apologised. It provided contact details of staff who would investigate concerns about the bin and communal maintenance. The following month, the landlord informs this Service that the complaint response was re-sent to the resident after he reported this had not been received, following which the landlord advises there was no request to escalate the complaint.
In November 2019, the resident raised concern that a complaint about the landlord’s performance had been ignored. He raised dissatisfaction that some drains on his street had not been unblocked and that he had not been contacted about them. The landlord’s reply detailed actions it had taken for the drains and confirmed operatives would return. The resident responded to raise dissatisfaction that he had been forced to raise issues with the landlord since purchasing the property in 2010, and that it continued to charge a service charge despite issues worsening and not being improved.
In January 2020, the resident emailed about his request to submit a complaint. He reported that a TV had been dumped on his street for two months, and he queried how the service charge could be justified when the communal gardens were clearly not attended to. He requested information about how recent ASB reports had been handled.
In February 2020, the landlord responded to the resident:
1. It noted that concern about grounds maintenance was raised a few months prior, and noted a recent inspection had confirmed this was a reasonable standard. It noted there had been issues with its grounds contractor’s performance; it expected standards to improve after it had addressed issues with them; and monthly estates inspections would monitor their performance.
2. It noted that it understood an issue with a bin installation on the street was now resolved.
3. It noted that it was aware of concerns about ASB, had reviewed correspondence, and was confident ASB procedures had been followed. It noted that it was restricted in information it could share due to data protection, but it assured him that the issue would be reviewed regularly. It asked him to report any current or future incidents of ASB to specific staff.
4. It advised that it was happy to discuss the issues further or agree a regular contact to keep him updated.
The information provided does not show the resident asked to discuss the issues further, and later in February 2020 he expressed dissatisfaction with a proposed increase to the service charge, as there were historic issues with the service provided and this did not represent value for money. In March 2020, the landlord asked the resident to clarify which services he felt were not value for money and the service charges he objected to. The resident responded that his overarching complaint was that the landlord was badly run, and that he felt its request for clarification demonstrated this.
In June 2020, this Service issued a determination on a separate complaint from the resident about a roof. It was explained that concerns about service charges were not considered in the decision, as these were not included in the original complaint about the roof and the Ombudsman does not consider issues that have not exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. The resident was advised to raise and pursue a new complaint, and to refer the landlord’s final complaint response to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied with this.
On 15 and 16 July 2020, the resident made a new complaint to the landlord. He said that the topic of his complaint was the service charge; the amount; its implementation; associated services; communication; its justification; and its exponential yearly increase. He advised that he had engaged with the landlord for ten years about its substandard service without resolution. He felt that issues he had reported were not offered suitable resolutions, due partly to the worsening of customer service and a high staff turnover. He raised dissatisfaction that all aspects of the service charge were not value for money, and that despite the quality of service provided the charge was increased yearly. He detailed that his concerns related to:
1. how the landlord engaged with service charge payers verbally, in writing and electronically. He detailed that phone numbers for departments did not work; phones were not answered; a web portal did not work; and that some recent emails were unprofessional.
2. what the landlord did and did not do in direct relation to the service charge invoice.
3. the communal gardens and the entire management of them.
The landlord provided a response to the resident on 29 July 2020:
1. It noted that he raised concerns about the service over a considerable period of time and a lack of improvement, which consequently meant he did not feel the service charge represented good value for money.
2. It noted that he raised concern about communication and advised that it wanted to improve this. It acknowledged some recent emails could have been better coordinated, and it noted he was previously asked to send all correspondence to a generic email address. It advised that if he provided further details about the web portal which did not work, it would look into this if necessary with its IT team. It asked him to provide this information by 7 August 2020.
3. It advised that it would deal with concerns about the communal areas as they arose, but due to the current circumstances (the Covid-19 pandemic) it had been challenging to continue the service. It advised that it would deal with any issues that arose from regular inspections of the communal areas, but if he had any specific issues, it asked him to confirm these by 7 August 2020.
4. It said it wanted to provide value for money in services it provided, and it had asked for specific details so it could investigate the resident’s concerns in a more thorough way. It asked him to provide information by 7 August 2020, so that it could take matters up with relevant teams and make necessary service improvements. It advised that it would review any information it received on 10 August 2020.
In September 2020, the resident emailed the landlord. He requested an update in respect to ASB reports about a neighbour. He queried who was responsible for cleaning on his street and when this occurred. He requested clean up after tree surgeons had attended several weeks prior. He stated that the landlord’s lack of action and communication did not represent value for money in regard to the service charge.
The landlord responded the same month. It detailed the position in respect to ASB. It advised that cleaning had returned to a normal weekly service, and that after an estate inspection, it had been arranged for fallen leaves to be removed within two weeks. It invited the resident to send pictures if there were other issues. It noted that there had been regular communication with the resident about different matters and it would continue to communicate with him. It apologised if he did not feel it had communicated well with him during the pandemic and lockdown, when it was attending a lot of emergencies.
In October 2020, the resident reported that litter and leaves had not been removed since the response about a weekly service and removal of fallen leaves being arranged. He attached a photo of some leaves and litter in a communal area and queried how communal maintenance was value for money. Later, he advised that since the 29 July 2020 response, he had emailed ongoing evidence that nothing had improved regarding value for money and the service charge. He said the same issues in his formal complaint were occurring and he raised dissatisfaction that the landlord charged for services that simply did not occur.
The landlord reviewed the schedule for the area and discussed the issue internally. It noted the resident paid for bulk rubbish, estate maintenance and horticulture in the service charge and that sweeping and litter picking occurred once a week. It noted that the area the resident referred to was open to the elements and therefore open to rubbish that was dumped or blown by the wind. It noted that it was now autumn and while its contractors were carrying out leaf clearance on estates, there would always be leaves due to the location. The landlord subsequently advised the resident that it was working with departments to improve performance, and would continue to do so in areas he outlined. The resident responded that the same reassurances had been provided for ten years, but the service charge increased year on year without any improvement.
In November 2020, the resident forwarded a photo to the landlord of a communal area which showed graffiti on a gate and some bags of leaves. His communication stated there was no need for a response from the landlord and the same month, he contacted this Service. He complained that the services the landlord charged for monthly were not supplied adequately or reasonably. He advised that the service charge increased every year and did not represent good value for money. He advised that the landlord had given reassurances that the service would improve, but he was seeking for the service charge to be reduced and to be partially refunded ten years of ‘fraudulent’ service charges.
In December 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss payments for arrears that had accrued on his account. The resident responded that he had an active claim with the Ombudsman about the quality and value for money of the services the landlord provided. He advised that the service charges should be suspended until the claim was resolved. The landlord noted the previous complaint decided by this Service in June 2020 and its compliance with this, and asked the resident to supply details of his unresolved claim to the Ombudsman so it could look into this, however the landlord obtained limited information.
In January 2021, the resident reported blocked drains. He raised dissatisfaction about having to report such maintenance, requested for the drains to be inspected and unblocked weekly, and he felt that drain blockages was evidence that the landlord did not maintain the street.
In February 2021, the resident reported that sleepers bordering the communal garden had rotted away, which he said led to flooding of a pathway during rainfall and the property foundations being affected. He said that this was due to the poor maintenance for which the service charge and yearly increases were not justified. The information provided advises that the landlord took steps to arrange an inspection which confirmed the sleepers were completely worn and no longer fit for purpose.
In April 2021, the resident’s account advises that he received a letter in which advised the landlord expressed an intention to replace the sleepers and recoup the cost of these in the service charge. The resident subsequently disputed the addition of the costs to the service charge, advising that the sleepers were no longer fit for purpose because the landlord had not maintained them for ten years.
Later in April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident about non-payment of service charges. It attached a service charge schedule and invited him to compile a list of his concerns about these. It also attached a letter asking him to consider participation in mediation with the landlord. The resident declined this and informed the landlord that he had appointed the Ombudsman to mediate and investigate for his concerns. Around this time, there was correspondence between this Service and the landlord to establish whether the complaint had exhausted the landlord’s two stage complaints procedure. The landlord provided previous initial responses, but noted the complaint had not exhausted its procedure as there had been no requests to escalate the previous responses.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord provided a complaint response to the resident, after being asked to do so by this Service:
1. It noted that an ASB complaint was responded to on 19 September 2019 and it was believed this matter was closed, as there had been no further reference to management of the ASB incident. It noted that the service charges complaint was responded to on 29 July 2020. It noted new issues raised in February 2021 were not responded to as a complaint. It noted that a resident request for the service charges complaint to be escalated on 27 April 2021 was outside of its normal period to escalate the matter.
2. It noted that the resident periodically communicated that the service charge did not provide value for money, but it was unclear what services he felt did not provide value for money apart from grounds maintenance. It noted that the response on 29 July 2020 addressed complaints about poor communication and value for money and said it was unable to add to this.
3. It advised that the complaint was upheld in respect to grounds maintenance as full responses to queries had not been provided about this. It advised that some queries about frequency of grounds maintenance, and related issues such as the sleepers, had been referred to staff to respond to.
4. It apologised that the resident felt the way he did and for the delayed response, and said that if he advised the outcome that he was seeking, it would review this.
The resident requested escalation of this and he was invited to make submissions to a panel that would consider the complaint. The resident detailed that his complaint about service dated back to 2010 and was that services had deteriorated over time, despite assurances, yet the service charge had continued to increase. He further detailed that the ‘general themes’ were:
1. accountability in respect to a telecommunications installation in the street and the dangerous position residents were left in for 72 hours;
2. the charging of residents for the upkeep of the street, when it was not maintained and was used as a public thoroughfare, which he said should be reviewed and corrected;
3. staff turnover and staff accountability which had led to lack of response to enquiries and untruths being given;
4. organisational process, which the requirement for the stage two complaint and Ombudsman intervention commented on;
5. not delivering the services charged for in respect to garden maintenance, as demonstrated by his routinely submitted emails and photos, and attempts to charge for rotten sleepers which had not been repaired and removed;
6. inadequate cleaning and maintenance of the street, shown by emails and photos he had submitted;
7. the handling of a knife fight in the street that involved one of the landlord’s residents. He raised dissatisfaction that a resident had not been removed from the neighbourhood and with not seeing security guards charged for in the service charge.
8. a leaking roof which had caused damage to his personal property;
9. the landlord had not followed previous recommendations from the Ombudsman, learned or improved service;
10. the service charge increased every year despite the service deteriorating;
11. ‘bullying’ emails about unpaid service charges, despite the ongoing complaint and investigation.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord provided a final complaint response to the resident:
1. It noted that some issues were not included as part of the current complaint or the complaint in July 2020 and so were outside its scope of consideration, but it commented that the resident discussed the telecommunications incident with staff when it occurred in early 2019; the street was part of the area the service charge covered; previous roof repairs were resolved but recent rainfall had resulted in a new leak; and a review of emails about service charges did not find these to be bullying or unprofessional. It noted that an ASB incident in 2019 was investigated and appropriate action was taken, but the resident should have been updated and assured the issue was being managed.
2. It advised that the grounds schedule was as expected, photos did not indicate a neglected area, and there was no evidence that weekly street cleaning and maintenance was not taking place. It advised that the opinion of a horticultural contractor that the wooden sleepers had reached the end of their life was reasonable, since the average lifespan of wooden sleepers was five to seven years and the sleepers had lasted longer than ten years.
3. It advised that a security service was deployed as needed across estates based on ASB reports, rather than as a set number of attendances at a given site.
4. It advised that it had looked at the services the resident received and the information he provided, and it did not feel there was evidence for a service decline linked to increased charges. It advised that the resident paid a variable service charge, and in some years the actual costs were less than the estimated costs, and in others there was a deficit. It noted that the estimated charge for the current year was less than the previous year’s. It advised that the service charge for the street was lower than three comparable areas it looked at. It noted that in the current year, the resident had been erroneously charged for services that were not provided, and it had arranged for this to be corrected and a refund applied to the account.
5. It acknowledged the desired outcome was a remedy for ‘fraudulently’ applied service charges since 2010, but it advised that it felt that the services provided to the street had been delivered and appropriately charged. It advised that it did not find any evidence of fraud in how the service charge had been applied or how services had been delivered, so did not conclude that a backdated refund to 2010 was appropriate.
6. It advised that it felt the previous response should have involved a visit to determine if cleaning and gardening were at expected levels, and it was only through the escalation that it was identified a regular check had not been taking place. It advised that regular estate inspections needed to be taking place, and noted that monthly estate inspections had started which would proactively monitor standards. It advised it felt that staff changes should not have impacted the follow through of queries, and the previous response could have responded to concerns more comprehensively. It acknowledged that some elements of the Ombudsman’s previous findings were relevant to the current complaint, and that the response could have been more proactive, timely and comprehensive. It noted that the Ombudsman’s orders for the previous complaint were implemented; process changes had been put in place; and there had been staff training for complaints and customer service. It noted that more accountability could have been demonstrated with a fuller examination of concerns and provision of a fuller response previously. In recognition that the resident had to continue to ask questions to obtain clarity about his service charge it offered a £500 goodwill payment, in addition to the service charge adjustment for the services that were not provided
The resident subsequently expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response. He did not feel the landlord’s investigation into the value for money of the service charge was sufficient, appropriate or proportionate. He felt that the landlord’s admittance of liability and compensation offer highlighted that an external review of the service charge was required. He felt the landlord was trying to diffuse the complaint through its complaints policy. He was unhappy that the landlord did not review the service charge for a ten year timeframe. He felt it continued to refuse to take responsibility for incompetence and poor customer service, despite recommendations from this Service, and continued to increase the service charge yearly with a disintegration of service. This investigation understands that the resident has withheld payment of service charges until the Ombudsman issues its decision.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s complaint extends from 2010, a timeframe of nine or ten years when the complaint was made. While this investigation understands the resident has longstanding dissatisfaction with the landlord, formal complaints are normally expected to be made to a landlord within six months of when they occur, which is reflected in our Scheme and the landlord’s complaints policy. This investigation therefore mainly focuses on events from 2020 to July 2021, the timeframe of the most recent complaints from the resident. This is because the longer time goes on, the more the ability to conduct an effective investigation may be impacted. While they provide important background, events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure are mainly referenced for contextual purposes.
A previous complaint from the resident about roof repairs was determined by the Ombudsman in June 2020. While the resident has stated that the landlord has not followed recommendations in the previous determination, our records advise that the landlord complied with the orders that were made and therefore the previous case is considered closed. This investigation recognises that the resident feels that the landlord has not learned from the previous determination, and the Ombudsman’s investigation assesses if the landlord responded in an appropriate way to this individual complaint, considering all of the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about services it provides and the service charges for these

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are set out by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when.
This means that it not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges or breach of lease in the same way as the courts, including if service charges are value for money or if a landlord has breached the lease contract. The resident was provided advice in respect to the above, and advised to consider legal advice in respect to his withholding of service charges. We can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, which this assessment goes on to do.
The resident pays a service charge for services such as communal services which, under legislation such as The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, have to be reasonably incurred and to be of a reasonable standard. The landlord should therefore review any concerns about the delivery and quality of these services, and to take appropriate action to address any identified issues. The landlord is expected to take steps to address issues with services. The landlord is also expected to reduce service charges in circumstances such as where it agrees this is applicable; where recharges have been applied which are out of line with the lease; where a service has been charged for which is not received (e.g. lifts on an estate without lifts); or where a landlord has been ordered to after a dispute has been raised to the First-Tier Tribunal.
In July 2019, the information provided shows that the resident raised some concerns and requested a meeting with senior staff. The landlord attempted to schedule meetings with the resident over two months and these were not progressed due to the resident’s availability. This shows that the landlord was responsive and provided opportunity to discuss the resident’s concerns.
In September 2019, the information provided shows that the resident raised some concerns to which the landlord responded and set out actions it was taking. This seems an overall reasonable response to issues raised at that time, particularly given there seems to have been no specific request to escalate this.
In February 2020, the landlord responded to some concerns. It confirmed it had taken steps to improve contractor service and would monitor this through inspections. It confirmed it was happy to discuss issues further with the resident. The landlord did not address specific concerns about installation of a bin, when it would have been customer focused to, however it noted the bin issue itself was resolved. This seems an overall reasonable response to issues raised around that time, given that the landlord addressed issues, detailed steps to try to improve and monitor service, and invited the resident to discuss issues further.
In March 2020, the landlord responded to concerns about a service charge increase, by requesting clarification about the services and charges there were objections about. This investigation understands the resident may have been frustrated at the prospect of restating issues, however a request for clarification within a service or complaints context is reasonable and normal if a service request or complaint is not fully understood.
In July 2020, the landlord responded to a complaint, in which it acknowledged the resident’s concerns and requested further information about these by a specified date. This shows that the landlord was seeking to understand the specific concerns and it provided an opportunity for the resident to supply further detail in order for it to resolve the complaint in an effective way. The landlord’s closure of the complaint seems reasonable, given that it did not receive the requested clarification it felt it needed, and this was in line with its then complaints policy.
Between September 2020 and April 2021, the resident and landlord corresponded about ASB; communal maintenance such as litter and leaf removal; blocked drains; and rotten garden sleepers, during which the resident continued to complain that services were not value for money. The landlord has acknowledged and apologised that communication was delayed on some occasions in respect to these. The information provided advises that the landlord internally discussed information the resident provided and reviewed communal maintenance schedules. This shows that the landlord considered issues in reasonable ways and its response to issues such as communication seems reasonable and proportionate, given the landlord was impacted in the period by the Covid-19 pandemic.
In April 2021, the landlord invited the resident to compile a list of concerns about a service charge schedule and to participate in mediation. This investigation understands this was declined because of the resident’s desire for the Ombudsman’s involvement, however the Ombudsman considers the landlord to have been reasonable here. The landlord was seeking to understand the concerns to a level where it felt it could effectively respond to them, as it had previously attempted, and the complaints procedure had not been exhausted. The invitation to the resident to participate in mediation shows the landlord explored different ways to try to resolve matters and this reflected its then complaints policy.
In June 2021, the landlord provided a complaint response, in which it summarised events; acknowledged there had been a complaint response delay; acknowledged full responses had not been supplied for queries about some communal issues; advised it was unclear what services the resident felt did not provide value for money apart from grounds maintenance; and requested clarity about this and the desired outcome. The Ombudsman considers this response to have been reasonable, as the landlord summarised matters; provided appropriate acknowledgment of issues and delays; restated its lack of clarity about the complaint issues; and provided further opportunity to progress matters.
The landlord was reasonable to advise in its July 2021 final response that a number of issues were outside the scope of the complaints procedure. A number of issues were not included in previous formal complaints made by the resident and related to historic matters, which meant they were not complaints which related to issues that occurred within the previous six months, as normally required under this Service’s Scheme and the landlord’s own complaints policy. Nevertheless, it is positive that the landlord shows it considered these to some extent and set a position.
The landlord reviewed the services the resident paid for, and advised that there was no evidence that weekly street cleaning and maintenance was not taking place, or evidence of a service decline linked to increased charges. It did note that in the current year, there had been an erroneous charge for services that were not provided, and it confirmed this was being refunded. This shows that the landlord set out its position about the quality of services. The landlord reached this in a reasonable way and this investigation sees no significant evidence to show the conclusions were wrong. This also shows that the landlord took appropriate action to remove charges that were not provided. As noted previously, it is not in this Service’s expertise to decide on the reasonableness of service charges, and if the resident disputes the position that the landlord set out, he has the option to ask the First-Tier Tribunal to decide on matters. This investigation does note that the landlord did not remind the resident of this and a recommendation is made to the landlord in respect to this.
The landlord’s response and handling in respect to the garden sleeper seems reasonable. It took steps to arrange inspection of the sleepers, which shows it responded to concerns about their condition. The landlord’s explanation that the sleepers had reached the end of their life due to their age rather than neglect was reasonable, as this was based on the views of professionals on whose opinion it is entitled to rely. The stated intention to recharge for the costs incurred to replace the sleepers also seems reasonable, as this is in line with the lease which allows the landlord to recharge such costs and obligates the leaseholder to pay them.
The landlord provided explanation about the approach to charges for a security service and the calculation of the service charges in general. This was customer focused and in accordance with the resident’s lease that the service charge is variable, and that actual and estimated service charges are recharged based on the landlord’s incurred costs.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s desire for a refund of service charges since 2010 and set out its position on this. As noted previously, there is a separate procedure whereby service charge disputes can be brought to the First-Tier Tribunal, then to an Upper Tribunal, however the landlord’s position is not out of line with legal rulings in this area. In 2018, the Upper Tribunal considered the dispute ‘Marlborough Park Services v Micha Leitner,’ which involved the reasonableness of historic charges from 2007. The Upper Tribunal found that payments that have been made over an extended period of time, without protest, amount to an agreement by a payee that the sums were reasonable. The landlord does not seem obligated to carry out a full review of charges since 2010, if the resident paid service charges from 2010 for an extended period of time without disputing these in a formal manner such as via the First-Tier Tribunal.
The landlord acknowledged issues, detailed relevant learning, and offered £500 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident. The landlord responded on many occasions about concerns such as communal upkeep, and while it acknowledged steps it could have taken in the previous complaint response, the landlord’s conclusions and evidence such as photos throughout matters suggests the estate was not being unreasonably neglected, which in turn suggests the impact of these issues seems low. The information provided also shows that the landlord engaged with the resident; gave him opportunity to discuss matters in person with senior staff; invited him to clarify his dissatisfaction on several occasions; and offered mediation.
However, the course of events was clearly protracted, and it may have been beneficial if the landlord had provided an earlier final response based on available information, to draw a line under matters. The remedy offered by the landlord therefore seems proportionate, considering all of the circumstances, however this investigation sees no evidence for significant service failings to justify an increase of this or to justify other outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the response to the resident’s concerns about services it provides and the service charges for these.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged issues, detailed relevant learning, and offered £500 compensation in recognition of the impact on the resident, which seems proportionate to the extent of service failings in the case. The landlord set out its position in respect to the services the resident pays for in his service charge, and if this is disputed, the appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property).

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

The landlord to re-offer the £500 compensation to the resident.
The landlord to ensure that appropriate monitoring of services such as communal maintenance continues.
The landlord to ensure it includes information that reminds residents of their rights to challenge services charges and then apply to the First-Tier Tribunal, when issuing service charges invoices and when responding to service charge disputes and complaints.