London & Quadrant Housing Trust (202206955)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202206955

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s enquiries about:
1. The level and liability of service charges.
2. Service charge accounts for the year 2019 to 2020.
3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The level and liability of service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (e) this Service cannot investigate complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. As part of the complaint the resident queried liability for charges and increase in costs. We cannot determine liability or interpret the terms of the lease provisions for service charges. The resident may wish to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service or First Tier Tribunal.
This service can, however, investigate complaints which are in relation to the management of service charge accounts and handling of enquiries relating to service charges. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to her service charge enquiries is therefore considered below, together with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder of the landlord. The resident’s lease commenced on 24 March 2017. The property is a two-bedroom flat in a communal building. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident contacted the landlord in October 2020 after receiving service charge accounts for the year 2019 to 2020. The resident raised multiple queries about costs, invoices and services. The resident requested an explanation for costs that she did not believe should be charged to leaseholders and a reduction in charges.
This Service has received information about service charge accounts for the years 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021. However, this investigation concerns the accounts for the year 2019 to 2020, as these were the subject of the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 21 March 2022.
The lease agreement says that the resident is responsible to “refund the landlord on demand a fair and proper proportion of outgoings attributable to the premises, such proportion to be conclusively determined by the landlord (who shall act reasonably).”
The landlord’s compensation policy says that “compensation may be considered where we fail to follow our policies and procedures”. It also says “We may also offer discretionary payment to customers who have suffered undue stress and upset because of our failure to respond to their complaints within specific timescales or done so inadequately.”
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. A stage one complaint is acknowledged by the end of the next working day and a response in writing within ten working days. A stage two complaint is acknowledged within two working days and a response provided within 20 working days. If the landlord is unable to provide responses within those timescales it will explain to the resident and provide a response within a furth. ten working days.

Summary of events

The resident contacted the landlord on 15 October 2020 to raise queries about the service charge accounts for the year 2019 to 2020. The queries related to multiple invoices, costs and services provided. The landlord responded on 5 November 2020. There was further email communication between the resident and the landlord from 20 November 2020 to 15 June 2021 about the resident’s queries.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 June 2021 to raise a formal complaint as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. She felt that her queries had not been responded to fully and some queries had not been responded to at all. The resident provided a list of queries that she wanted answers to:
1. Damage to a broken communal door and why the person who caused the damage had not been recharged rather than all residents.
2. Bulk refuse collection and why individuals are not recharged rather than all residents.
3. CCTV equipment costs and why it is not being used to identify individuals.
4. Lack of communication with the landlord’s property manager.
5. Key fob audit, security of the buildings and why the system was not used to identify individuals causing damage. Why key fobs operate all buildings which made the resident feel unsafe.
6. Why a Section 20 consultation was not carried out in relation to three invoices totalling more than £250.
7. Further information relating to damage caused to a fire vent left open by a member of the landlord’s staff.
8. A request to remove window cleaning costs as window cleaning was not carried out in 2019 to 2020.
9. Queries about the 18-month rule in relation to several invoices.
10. The invoice relating to the installation of two taps.
11. Whether maintenance charges are always charged when an operative visits site.
12. Two charges of £45 for a repair on one invoice.
13. The difference between communal and external electricity and the increase in electric costs.
14. Costs relating to lights in the communal garden being constantly on.
15. Electricity costs for the landlord’s vehicles using charging points in the underground car park.
16. Invoices relating to grounds maintenance not being clear.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 1 July 2021. On 8 July 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to chase a response to her complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay on 15 July 2021 and said that a response would be provided by 29 July 2021. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2021 as she had not received a response. On 2 September 2021 the landlord apologised for the delay. The landlord responded at stage one of its complaints process on 15 September 2021. In the response the landlord said:
1. It had viewed CCTV footage to try and identify the person who had damaged the communal door. It had been unable to identify the person to recharge them for the damage. As it was unable to identify the person under the terms of the lease it was able to recharge all costs for the communal repair.
2. It hoped that the presence of CCTV would deter people from dumping bulk refuse and where an individual could be identified it would charge them for collection. Whilst CCTV would assist there were 400 residents on the scheme and it was not always possible to pinpoint a perpetrator. It said that bulk rubbish was always inspected to see if the person could be identified from correspondence addresses.
3. Previously there were no CCTV cameras that covered the courtyards, and this was installed at the request of residents. The primary reason for installing this was to deter anti-social behaviour. CCTV would assist law enforcement and, in some cases, identify people involved in anti-social behaviour and misuse of the communal courtyard.
4. The landlord had reviewed the account and queries and could see extensive correspondence from both the property manager and the service charge team covering a variety of issues. It apologised that some of the queries were not answered as part of the correspondence.
5. A key fob desktop audit was carried out in the previous year and it was not necessary to gather fob details from individual residents. Old unused fobs were cancelled and the controller reset.
6. The works carried out to the smoke vent system was for three different things. This included the smoke vent controller system, repairs to the window and smoke vent and installation of weather sensors. Due to it being three separate repairs the landlord said it did not need to consult under Section 20.
7. The smoke vent was left open due to health and safety and fire risk assessment reasons in case there was a fire in the building. It said this was a legitimate reason and not neglect or covered by insurance and was therefore chargeable.
8. There were three attendances by its contractor to clean windows during the financial year. Some windows were inaccessible by direct abseiling and so alternative arrangements had to be found. This was not possible in 2018, however it had been able to access all windows by alternative means and cleaning was completed.
9. There were many reasons why an invoice may be paid late. The landlord explained that the18 month rule started from when it incurred the cost. It incurred the cost in the financial year of 2019 to 2020 and it was charged to residents in that financial year.
10. The landlord confirmed where the two taps had been installed.
11. There was a minimum charge for when a member of the landlord’s direct maintenance team visited. Contractors may have their own call out charges. Where possible, the caretaker would carry out ad hoc handyman and maintenance jobs. However, if it were a larger job, it would be referred to direct maintenance or an appropriate contractor.
12. It was not able to see two invoices of £45 for a repair and asked the resident to identify the line on the accounts that she was referring to.
13. The increase in electricity charge was due to actual meter readings where historically they were based on estimated readings. The Energy Team had looked at the charges and confirmed there were no anomalies with the charges.
14. It was not able to say how much it cost for a light to be on all day but the cost to each resident would be minimal.
15. Its caretaking vehicles had not used the charging points during the year 2019 to 2020 and there was no impact on the final service charge accounts. The vehicles had started using the charging points from March 2020.
16. The breakdown provided for grounds maintenance was clear and it showed the full invoice which covered all the landlord’s stock. The landlord explained how to see the costs relating to the scheme and block from the file it had provided.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 October 2021 as she felt that the landlord had not fully responded to all of her queries. She requested to progress to stage two of its complaints process. The landlord contacted the resident on several occasions saying that it needed longer to investigate. It originally said it would respond in February 2022 with further promises to respond on 4 March 2022 and 7 March 2022.
The landlord provided its final response at stage two of its complaints process on 21 March 2022. It repeated its responses from stage one and added:
1. Key fobs that hadn’t been used for a period of 3 months or more had been eliminated. Active fobs could not be cancelled without a full re-issue of fobs to the entire scheme. This work was not currently planned.
2. An invoice dated October 2018, was paid by the landlord on the 26 of June 2019, this was considered the date the cost was incurred and therefore it was included within the 2019 to 2020 accounts.
3. The landlord said it had checked its records regarding the two charges of £45 on one invoice. It related to access issues as well as attendance. It had raised an enquiry with its contractor for further details around the access issues. If it found that a £45 credit was due it would be included in the next set of service charge accounts.
4. There was no means of accurately measuring the electricity used by its mobile caretaking vehicles. It was looking into the possibility of installing a separate supply for its vehicles. It accepted that a reimbursement for electricity was due from March 2020 and that this would be included in the next set of service charge accounts.
5. There was no means of accurately measuring the electricity used by the lights in the garden which were constantly on. It had requested further detailed information from its energy team but had not yet received a response.
6. It provided additional information in the form of screenshots of the invoices for grounds maintenance and the costs relating to the resident’s estate.
7. The landlord said that there were no refund payments at the time based on the items raised.
8. The landlord apologised for the delays the resident had experienced. It awarded discretionary compensation of £75 due to the delays and the time and effort the resident had invested. It said that stage two was its final response and if the resident was dissatisfied with its response she could seek free advice from the leasehold advisory service or make an application to First Tier Tribunal if she believed charges were unreasonable.
The resident responded to the landlord on 28 March 2022. She acknowledged that the complaint was closed and accepted the compensation offer. The resident said that there were three points outstanding that the landlord had not answered which the landlord responded to the same day. The landlord said that:
1. It was investigating the electricity charges for its mobile caretaking vehicles using the charging points and a reimbursement would appear in the next service charge accounts.
2. The invoice relating to two charges of £45 were being investigated and a refund would appear in the next set of service charge accounts if it was appropriate. It had asked for clarification on how this would be communicated to the resident.
3. The calculations for communal lighting were being investigated and that information would be provided as soon as it was able to.
The landlord’s letter dated 28 March 2022 was its final response to the resident’s complaint, confirming that her complaint had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. During this investigation the resident confirmed that she received a response from the landlord about the outstanding point 17 (a). The resident confirmed that points 17 (b) and (c) remained outstanding.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to enquiries relating to service charge accounts for the year 2019 to 2020

There were a significant number of queries raised in the resident’s complaint to the landlord. The landlord has reasonably investigated each query and provided a fair and detailed response to the majority of the resident’s enquiries. The resident acknowledged that the complaint was closed and accepted the compensation offered. However, on 28 March 2022 the resident said that there were three outstanding points that the landlord had not responded to.
The landlord said that no electricity had been used by the landlord’s caretaking vehicles in the account year 2019 to 2020 and therefore there was no impact on the service charge for that account year.
1. The landlord’s response was reasonable and it acknowledged that it would reimburse residents from March 2020 in the next set of service charge accounts.
2. During this investigation the resident has informed this Service that she has received the next set of accounts for 2020 to 2021. In these accounts the landlord provided a calculation and confirmed that costs had been deducted from the electricity charges for its own vehicles.
3. The resident advised this Service that she was unable to see a refund for the March 2020 period in the latest set of service charge accounts. The landlord failed to follow up on this action or provide an explanation. The landlord should provide an update to the resident on whether a refund was made for the use of electricity for March 2020.
The landlord identified the two charges of £45 on one invoice for repairs and reasonably investigated this with its contractor. It said it would provide a refund in the next set of service charge accounts if it was appropriate and communicate this to the resident. The resident told this Service that she had received the next service charge accounts and could see no evidence of a refund of £45. Whilst it would be reasonable for the landlord not to provide a refund where one was not warranted, it would have demonstrated good practice to have communicated the finding of its investigation to the resident. The landlord has failed to communicate its findings with the resident and should provide an explanation for why a refund was not due.
The landlord said that it was investigating the calculations for communal lighting and it would provide information as soon as it was able to. The resident advised this Service that this point remains outstanding and the landlord has not communicated its findings. The landlord has failed to follow up on this action as it said it would on 28 March 2022. The landlord should provide the findings of its investigation to the resident.
The resident confirmed that there were only three points outstanding after completing the landlord’s internal complaints process. However, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the security of the building. She said that she felt unsafe as key fobs opened all buildings, not just the one she lived in. The landlord did not acknowledge the residents concern in relation to her not feeling safe or provide any reassurance. It would have been good practice for the landlord to have investigated its key fob system further and provide an update to the resident to alleviate any concerns.
While the landlord has provided responses to most of the residents queries it did not follow up on the outstanding points outlined in its response of 28 March 2022. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s concerns in relation to key fobs or further investigate. This service acknowledges the resident’s frustration to conclude her complaint and in recognition of the service failure compensation has been ordered.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord’s stage one and two responses were detailed and investigated the issues raised. However, it is not disputed that the landlord has failed to meet its complaints policy timescales. It acknowledged its failings, apologised and made some redress in offering £75 in compensation for the delays. From the date of the stage one complaint on 30 June 2021 it was 55 working days before the resident received a response on 15 September 2021, 45 days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy. The resident requested to escalate her complaint at stage two on 6 October 2021 and received a response 139 working days later on 21 March 2022, 119 days outside of the landlord’s complaints policy.
The complaint handling policy says that stage one responses should be sent within ten working days and stage two responses within 20 working days from the date of the escalation request. Although the landlord did communicate delays it promised to provide a response on three separate dates which did not happen. Extensions to timescales should not exceed a further ten working days. 55 days at stage one and 139 days at stage two is significantly outside of the landlord’s complaints policy and this Services complaints handling code. The £75 compensation offer was not proportionate to the frustration, time and trouble the resident experienced in repeatedly chasing responses.
Therefore, in recognition of the time and trouble experienced by the resident for the delay and the complaint handling failure, additional compensation has been ordered.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with respect to the landlord’s responses to the resident’s queries about the service charge accounts for 2019 to 2020.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord investigated the resident’s queries and provided reasonable responses however it failed to follow up on outstanding concerns or to address the resident’s concerns about safety with regard to building security.
The landlord significantly delayed in responding to the resident’s queries and in meeting its complaints policy timescales.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation totalling £375:
1. £100 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures to respond to her queries.
2. £200 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its failures in its complaint handling.
3. £75 already offered if not previously paid.
Within four weeks of this determination the landlord should provide an update to the resident on the outstanding issues:
1. Whether a refund was provided from March 2020 for the use of electricity by its caretaking vehicles.
2. Whether there was a refund due of £45 due or an explanation for why there was no refund.
3. Whether it had investigated electricity costs for lights being on constantly and the finding.
Within four weeks of this determination the landlord should investigate its key fob system and provide the resident with an update and reassurance on security.