Clarion Housing Association Limited (202204038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204038

Clarion Housing Association Limited

17 April 2023

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 the:
   1. The reasonableness of the service charge for the 2018/19 financial year.
   2. Information provided about the service charge, specifically the administration of the resident’s service charges and the timeliness of the information provided by the landlord.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. The reasonableness of the service charge for the 2018/19 financial year.
4. The resident has made mention of being dissatisfied with the service charges levied by the landlord in relation to a mislabelled service charge in the 2018/19 report. Under Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case. However, we can review complaints that relate to the collection of service charges or how information about service charges were communicated.

Background

5. The resident and landlord are in a shared ownership agreement. There is also a third-party managing agent, which manages service charges levied against residents.
6. In 2019 (exact date unknown) the resident received her service charge statement for the 2018/19 period. This statement included a charge of £182.03 for a car parking space.
7. In 2020 (exact date unknown) the resident contacted the landlord to query why she had been charged for a car parking space in the 2018/19 service charge period, when she did not have access to a car parking space. In early 2021, the landlord stated that it had contacted the managing agent to query this amount. It stated that it would not be able to remove the service charge until it had been assured by the managing agent that the cost was not payable.
8. The resident contacted the landlord on at least five occasions between January 2021 and January 2022 in relation to the car parking charges.
9. The resident raised a complaint on 17 January 2022. She stated that she had been charged via her service charges for a car parking space she did not have access to. Despite reassurances from the landlord that the charge would be removed by October 2021, it was still present on her service charge account. The resident requested that the £182.03 be removed from the account and to be compensated for having to chase the matter again and the poor service provided in relation to the charge.
10. There was no further communication between the landlord and the managing agent until March 2022. On this occasion, the landlord chased it for a response and an explanation of the car parking charges. On 16 March 2022, the managing agent informed the landlord that after reviewing the resident’s service charges, it had incorrectly described the charge. It confirmed that instead of stating the charge was for car parking, it should have stated that it was for communal heating. Therefore, it had concluded that the charges were correct and payable.
11. In its stage two response on 31 March 2022, the landlord stated that after holding discussions with the managing agent, it was identified that the £182.03 was a legitimate cost to be paid, but had been incorrectly referred to as car parking when it was in relation to the communal heating. The landlord apologised for this administrative error, but informed the resident the cost would need to be paid. However, it acknowledged that an error was made and that this had cost the resident time and inconvenience, and as such it awarded £50 compensation in light of this error.
12. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 25 June 2022. The resident stated that she was unhappy with the explanation provided by the landlord in relation to the service charge. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to acknowledge this error and deduct the £182.03 from her service charge account.

Assessment and findings

Assessment

13. Upon receiving queries regarding service charges, it is expected that the landlord contact the managing agent who handles the service charges promptly to enquire about the discrepancies. The landlord should then review the information provided, and respond to the resident’s queries.
14. In 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to query why she had been charged for a car parking space in her service charges, when she did not have access to the car park. The landlord contacted the managing agent in 2021(exact date unknown), to enquire why this charge had been applied; however, no response was provided until March 2022.
15. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the managing agent again until March 2022; therefore, by not being active in the investigation to the resident’s service charges until a complaint was raised by the resident was a failure in its service. In addition, there is evidence to suggest that the landlord requested the explicit exclusion of dates in the managing agents contact as it would have shown it to have only chased a response in March 2022, and was not followed up sooner. The landlord’s lack of engagement in the investigation into the resident’s service charges inevitably caused delays to a resolution being found between both parties, and significantly impacted the resident’s trust in the information being provided.
16. Based upon the evidence provided to this Service, this delay did not have a significant financial impact on the resident as the landlord had held any requested payments in relation to the charge until an answer was provided by the managing agent. However, this Service does acknowledge that the matter would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience in relation to the delays, as she was assured that by October 2021 the matter would be resolved; however, this did not occur. As such, the landlord’s inaction was a failure in its service.
17. The landlord received the requested information regarding the service charges in March 2022. Upon receiving the available information from the managing agent, the landlord informed the resident that the charge of £182.03 was payable as it was in relation to communal heating charges and had been mislabelled in the service charge statement.
18. As above (see scope of investigation) this Service cannot determine whether the charge was reasonable or not. However, this Service can determine if the landlord provided the information to the resident in a clear manner. The explanation that the landlord provided was based on the evidence supplied to it from the managing agent who assured it that when adding up the costs for the car parking, they were the exact same for the communal heating which was not present on the service charge information. As such, this Service is satisfied that the explanation provided was reasonable and evidenced sufficiently.
19. The landlord awarded the resident £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience, but owing to the delays in contacting the managing agent this is not adequate compensation. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation in light of the additional delays and lack of engagement in the investigation into the service charges. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which suggests awards of £100 and over where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its failings, but there has been no permanent impact on the resident.

Determination

20. in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the reasonableness of the service charge for the 2018/19 financial year is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the information provided about the service charge, specifically the administration of the resident’s service charges and the timeliness of the information provided by the landlord.

Orders

22. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £150 compensation in light of the delays to obtaining the required information from the managing agent, and the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.
23. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered to the resident and should be paid within four weeks of this report.