Clarion Housing Association Limited (202105446)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105446

Clarion Housing Association Limited

18 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about his service charges, and its handling of his subsequent complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, and the lease began on 14 June 2014.
The resident contributes towards the landlord’s costs, broadly maintenance, management and repair, through annual service charges. The lease agreement shows the parties agree to comply with the provisions contained in sections 18 to 30B of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) in respect of the charges.
Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge increase fall outside the jurisdiction of this Service. The First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The Ombudsman can consider the landlord’s communication in relation to the charges, so the complaint defined above is within our remit to assess.
Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives leaseholders the right to ask their landlord to supply a summary of the relevant costs, which make up their service charges, for the last accounting period. The summary should be compiled by a qualified professional. A resident’s request must be submitted to the landlord in writing.
Section 22 of the Act gives leaseholders the right to inspect any receipts or invoices which support the landlord’s service charge figures. The request must be made within six months of receiving the summary. Requests must again be submitted in writing. The landlord must provide facilities for inspecting the information within one month of the request, and the facility must extend for a period of two months.
The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s original information request, or any information to show whether it was submitted in writing or verbally. However, the landlord has not disputed the substance of the resident’s complaint. That said, some variation between the parties’ respective timelines was noted. This was particularly evident in the landlord’s stage two response. The below summary of events is based on the evidence seen by the Ombudsman.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. It aims to resolve complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days. At both stages, a complainant should be kept informed where the landlord is unable to meet these timescales. The landlord should also provide an amended response timescale.

Summary of events

On 10 February 2021, the resident emailed the landlord in connection with its recent letter about an increase in the level of service charges from 1 April 2021. He said his charges were being increased by £300 but no explanation for this increase was offered. He therefore wanted more information before he paid any additional charges. The key points were:
1. The resident wanted to know what prompted the increased charges.
2. He asked for details of the charges from the previous year for comparative purposes.
3. He asked for a copy of the landlord’s building insurance invoice and details of its tendering process. This was on the basis he felt the cost of the insurance was excessive.

The resident also asked several additional questions about the level of specific charges, such as the communal electricity bill, and about what some of the charges were for. It is noted this email could reasonably be considered a section 22 request given the resident’s request for a supporting invoice.

Based on subsequent correspondence between the parties, the resident requested a breakdown of the new charges on 11 February 2021 in line with section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985). The resident later said his request was submitted to the landlord’s contact centre.
Between 21 February and 26 February 2021, the resident asked the landlord to respond to his enquiry on three separate occasions. Each time the landlord responded by confirming his email had been passed to the relevant department.
On 2 March 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint on the basis he still hadn’t received a response. This was 14 working days after his initial enquiry. He said the landlord was outside of its ten working day response timescale and the matter needed escalating accordingly.
Between 4 and 9 March 2021 the resident contacted the landlord on three further occasions. The wording of his correspondence suggests he had chased the landlord more than ten times for a response following his original enquiry. Two of his emails asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint about his experience.
The landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence on 10 March 2021. It said a formal complaint had already been raised and it would reply in due course. The email did not confirm the date the complaint was raised.
The landlord emailed the resident on 16 March 2021. It thanked him for both his initial enquiry, and for the time he spent discussing his concerns during a phone call on 11 March 2021. It responded to each of the points raised in the resident’s initial email from 10 February 2021. This was around five weeks after his questions were submitted.
The resident replied the same day with additional questions. He said his “section 22 request” from 11 February 2021 was still outstanding. This was despite the fact he was told the request was passed to the relevant team on several occasions.
The landlord replied to each of the resident’s additional questions on 17 March 2021. It also apologised for its oversight in addressing his “section 22 request”. A spread sheet breaking down the service charge for the resident’s building, and a summary of the landlord’s insurance cover were attached to the email. It said the requested Section 22 information would be provided before 20 March 2021.
On 19 March 2021 the landlord’s relevant specialist responded to the resident’s section 22 request. The resident was sent multiple emails containing spread sheets and a significant number of invoices. Brief explanatory notes were provided to accompany the information. The volume of information provided suggests the landlord was responding to a specific, or detailed, request from the resident.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 20 March 2021. It acknowledged a delay in responding to the resident’s complaint and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It said:
1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s enquiry on 11 February 2021 and opened a corresponding case record. All his subsequent correspondence was added to the case.
2. The landlord’s service charge team contacted the resident on 11 March 2021 to discuss his queries. It then emailed him a response on 16 March 2021 including a full breakdown of the charges and an explanation for the increase.
3. This prompted further questions from the resident which the landlord answered the following day.
4. The landlord’s service charge team were unable to answer the resident’s section 22 request because it didn’t hold the required information. It therefore advised the resident to contact the landlord’s relevant specialist.
5. The landlord’s specialist responded to the resident’s request in full on
  19 March 2021.
6. The service charge team had delayed responding to the resident’s enquiry. While this represented service failure on the part of the landlord, each of the resident’s emails had now received a response and were attached to the relevant records.
The resident responded to the landlord’s information on 20 March 2021. The email subject heading was “Section 22 queries”. He said the information left “a lot to be desired” and he felt residents were being “ripped off”. He asked for clarification of six specific issues and provided several of the landlord’s corresponding reference numbers. For example, he questioned why it cost “£88 to change a lightbulb” and said this figure should be reviewed. While no further invoices were requested at this point, the resident did say he wanted more information about some of the issues raised.
The resident first asked to escalate his complaint on 23 March 2021. This was on the basis the service charge team only contacted him after he raised a complaint. Around ten email chasers beforehand had not been sufficient to prompt them to respond. He said the timing was an important aspect of his case given the new charges were due to begin in April 2021. Delays were therefore “unacceptable” since the increase was disputed. He also questioned why the service charge team had not proactively gathered the required information on his behalf.
The resident again asked to escalate his complaint on 8 April 2021. He said the landlord had not replied to his additional questions on 20 March 2021 despite receiving four chaser emails. He again expressed concern it had taken a formal complaint for the landlord to provide the requested information. Further, he questioned why his follow up questions were not yet answered.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 April 2021. He said a call earlier that day, about the service charges, had been confusing. He therefore provided copies of the landlord’s accounting spread sheets to explain the items he referred to.
The resident contacted the landlord’s head of charges on 30 April 2021. He said his original request dated back to February 2021, but he’d raised further questions on 20 March 2021 that had not been answered. Since he was legally entitled to the information requested, he be grateful to receive a response.
The landlord replied the same day by email. This was around six weeks after the residents “Section 22 enquiries” email. The landlord responded in turn to the to the resident’s questions. For example, it said the £88 charge was to replace four bulkhead lights in a stairwell. Though the landlord was unable to answer several of the questions, it assured the resident that relevant members of its team would provide answers in due course.
The resident chased the landlord’s stage two response on 5 May 2021. The escalation was subsequently confirmed nine working days later on 18 May 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 21 May 2021. This was around eight weeks after the resident’s first escalation request. A further delay in responding to his complaint was acknowledged. The main points were:
1. The resident’s initial service charge enquiry was received by email on
  16 February 2021. The email requested a full set of the landlord’s accounts in line with section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985).
2. Issues around response times from the landlord’s service charge team were acknowledged. Though the landlord responded to the section 22 query on
  20 March 2021, this was five days outside of the relevant statutory timescale.
3. During the above period, the landlord’s relevant team were experiencing a high volume of queries. However, it should have responded sooner and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It similarly failed to acknowledge either his enquiry or his section 22 request. This resulted in the resident having to “continually chase” a response. Similar problems also occurred when the resident asked to escalate his complaint.
4. The resident was offered £150 in compensation to recognise the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication failures. This figure comprised £100 for failing to respond to the resident’s service charge queries within the relevant timescale and £50 for a similar delay in responding to his complaint.
5. The landlord had obtained answers to the resident’s outstanding questions from its relevant departments. While these were included in the landlord’s response, it did not acknowledge the length of time the landlord took to respond in full to his follow up “Section 22” query.
The resident notified the landlord he was dissatisfied with the outcome on 23 May 2021. This was on the basis he was unsure whether charges in the period 2019-2020 were accurate. He had identified a charge he felt was too high and the landlord subsequently agreed. Further, its stage two response suggested the landlord did not take any action to prevent similar issues from reoccurring. Finally, in respect of cleaning charges, the increase had not translated into an improved service for residents. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence the landlord responded to his email.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 6 July 2021 to clarify his complaint along with his preferred resolution. The main points were:
1. The landlord took too long to provide information he was legally entitled to and required a significant amount of chasing to respond. Further, the information it eventually provided was difficult to understand and he was concerned about its accuracy.
2. The landlord delayed responding to follow up queries about the information. The resident was ultimately forced to escalate his queries to the landlord’s service charge leader for a response.
3. From the landlord’s information, the resident had identified items were charged incorrectly and for services that were not received. However, some of the charges did not make sense and the landlord did not sufficiently explain them. The resident was not given information about how to challenge the charges.
4. The landlord had delayed responding to the resident’s complaint and his concerns were not sufficiently investigated. The landlord’s service charge manager reviewed their team’s work and he felt this was a conflict of interest
5. The resident felt the landlord should conduct a full review of its recent service charges, along with its complaint handling process. Further, the landlord should ensure it responded to issues within its relevant timescales going forward. Finally, the resident felt he should be compensated £300 for the time and effort he spent obtaining the information.
On 2 March 2022 the resident provided this Service with a stage two response, from 18 February 2022, for a separate complaint concerning similar issues. The response addressed delays in responding to the resident’s service charge query and a delay in responding to his section 22 request. It said the resident could contact the First Tier Tribunal if he was dissatisfied with a service charge.
During a phone call on 9 March 2022, the resident confirmed he was concerned about the amount of time it took the landlord to respond to his information requests. He said residents shouldn’t need to raise a complaint to obtain information which they were legally entitled to. Further, some of the information he was given applied to all the landlord’s estates. It was therefore unhelpful given he wanted evidence of the relevant costs for his building. He also said he hadn’t requested the landlord’s accounts at any stage during the timeline.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the resident has spent unnecessary time and effort in pursuing both his enquiries and his subsequent complaint. The landlord has accepted it was responsible for delays and failures during the timeline and it awarded £150 in total redress. The stage two response from 18 February 2022 shows the resident recently encountered similar issues with the landlord’s handling of service charge enquires. This suggests some of the problems the resident experienced in his initial complaint may be ongoing.
In relation to the recent complaint, the landlord has issued a detailed response which refers to additional evidence the Ombudsman has not seen. It therefore warrants a separate investigation to ensure the resident’s concerns are given thorough consideration. We will arrange to progress a new case accordingly and update the resident in due course.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The timeline shows there were several delays in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for service charge information. It took the landlord around five weeks, between 10 February and 16 March 2021, to respond to the resident’s initial email. Further, based on the period between
11 February 2021 and 19 March 2021, the landlord was around eight days outside of the statutory timescale in which it must respond to section 22 requests. No information was seen to show the landlord notified the resident there would be a delay in providing the information. That said, it is recognised requests of this type can be labour intensive. Further, the request was made during a busy annual period for service charge teams in general.
The timeline confirms it also took around two months, between 20 March and
21 May 2021, before the landlord responded in full to the resident’s follow up email. This email contained the heading “Section 22 queries”. The outstanding information was ultimately provided in the landlord’s stage two response. It was clear from the wording of the resident’s email that additional information was required even if it did not specify what form this additional information should take.
On that basis, the landlord should have reasonably treated this email as a further section 22 request to ensure it complied with the relevant statutory response timescale. While the landlord has said it was five days late in responding to the resident’s initial section 22 request, it hasn’t acknowledged the delay in responding to his follow up queries or that any statutory timescale may have applied. It is unclear whether the resident would have received a full response to his follow up enquiries if he hadn’t escalated his complaint.
The Ombudsman was unable to confirm the landlord’s timescale for responding to service charge queries. However, the landlord has not disputed the resident’s assertion, taken from the correspondence between the parties, that it should reply within ten working days. This benchmark was therefore deducted from the above identified timescales. This was to estimate the landlord’s overall delays in respect its response to the resident’s requests for service charge information.
Based on the above method, it was found there were around eight weeks in total delays. Given the above, it is reasonable to conclude more than six of these weeks represent delays by the landlord in responding to section 22 information requests. This assessment found around four of these weeks were not appropriately acknowledged in the landlord’s stage two response. During this time, the resident was actively chasing the landlord for a response. As a result, the evidence shows the landlord’s offer of redress did not consider the full timeline of the delays or the full extent of the inconvenience they caused. Its offer of redress therefore failed to put things right for the resident.
The resident’s concerns around the accuracy and relevance of some of the information provided were acknowledged. However, based on the information seen, these matters were not addressed during the landlord’s complaints process. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remit, the scope of this assessment is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any issues accordingly prior to the Ombudsman’s involvement. In this case, the evidence shows the resident’s concerns were raised after it issued a final response letter. The resident could either raise a formal complaint or approach the First Tier Tribunal if he wants to pursue the matter further.
The timeline confirms there were further delays and failures in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. It shows the landlord was around four working days late in issuing a stage one response. Further, it took a number of emails from the resident before it ultimately acknowledged a formal complaint had been raised at stage one. Similarly, the stage two response was delayed by around three weeks based on the period between 23 March and 21 May 2021. During this time the resident chased the progress of his escalation on three separate occasions. Again, from the information seen, it’s unclear whether the landlord would have issued a response without the resident’s third chaser email being sent.
It is recognised the landlord acknowledged the above identified delays and failures in respect of its complaint handling. However, a further complaint handling issue was identified. The resident said he wasn’t given any information about the process through which he could dispute the value of specific service charges if he was dissatisfied. The landlord’s relevant complaint responses confirm he was not signposted towards the First Tier Tribunal. Since the context of the resident’s complaint was evident from his correspondence, the landlord should have reasonably included this information in its responses. It is noted this information was included in the landlord’s recent response to his similar complaint.
Overall, this assessment found the landlord’s previous offer of compensation, comprising £100 for its service charge response and £50 for its complaint handling, was disproportionate given the circumstances. This is because the landlord failed to address the full timeline of delays and therefore the full extent of the inconvenience experienced by the resident. It also failed to provide information about how the resident could challenge his charges.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about his service charges, and its handling of his subsequent complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s stage two response failed to acknowledge the full timeline of the delays, and therefore the extent of the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also failed to inform the resident how he could dispute specific charges. It is reasonable to conclude this information was relevant given the context of his complaint. The landlord’s previous offer of redress was therefore disproportionate given the circumstances.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident an additional £150 in compensation (separate from its previous offer of £150) within four weeks comprising:
1. £100 for any distress or inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to address the full timeline of delays.
2. £50 for any distress or inconvenience caused by its failure to inform the resident how to dispute specific charges in its complaint responses.

This brings the total compensation for the complaint in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations for instances where a landlord’s actions have resulted in ‘a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating an unreasonable level of involvement by the complainant’. This is a reasonable benchmark given the circumstances.

Recommendations

The landlord to share this report with its relevant teams for training purposes. This is with a view to improving its level of service going forwards.
The landlord to ensure information requests with applicable statutory timescales, such as section 22 requests, are identified promptly and subjected to increased monitoring, until completion, to ensure compliance with the relevant deadlines.
The landlord to take steps to ensure its relevant staff can confidently identify statutory information requests and are also aware of the different types.
The landlord to ensure it consistently includes details of the First Tier Tribunal in its responses to complaints concerning service charges.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above order and confirm its intentions with respect to the recommendations within four weeks.