London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202013732)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013732

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

5 May 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about her service charge.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder with the landlord. The property is a house. The resident has dyslexia, and she has made the landlord aware of this.
  2. On 28 April 2020, the resident contacted the landlord in relation to a service charge made for a children’s play area.
  3. On 25 June 2020, the landlord told the resident that it would not remove the charge for the play area from her service charge bill as the area was accessible by all residents on the estate. The resident raised the matter as a formal complaint the same day. She asked whether the play area was new, and if so whether there had been a consultation about setting it up. The resident said she did not have any children, nor did she have access to the play area, and she asked that the charge be removed.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord on 23 July 2020, as she had not received a response to her complaint. She asked the landlord to provide the following information: pictures and location of the play area, the distance from her property to the play area and the date the play area was built.
  5. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint on 29 October 2020. It said that it had been agreed that residents living in her road should not be charged for the play area and that this cost would be removed from her service charge bill.
  6. On 11 February 2021, the resident told the landlord she had dyslexia and that she was finding its responses hard to understand.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 February 2021, as the charge for the play area had not been removed from her estimated service charge bill for 2021/2022. She asked the landlord to provide evidence of its bulk refuse collection as the local authority offered this service for street properties. The resident asked that for disability reasons, the landlord contact her by phone.
  8. The landlord issued a complaint response on 15 April 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding and said that:
    1. It estimated the service charge each year by reviewing the charges for the previous 12 months and the average costs over the past three to five years. At the end of the financial year, it reconciled the charges based on the invoices it had received and the services provided.
    2. It had refunded the service charge for the play area to the resident’s final service charge statement for 2019/2020. It said that it understood that a query in relation to the resident’s service charge for 2021/2022 had now been closed.
    3. Although the local authority was responsible for household waste, this did not include fly-tipping or items not disposed of in the correct bins. In these instances, the landlord had arranged for the dumped waste to be removed. Where it could not establish who had been responsible for dumping the waste, the landlord recovered the cost via the service charge. If the landlord had not collected any waste during the year, the final service charge would reflect this, and a credit would be added to residents’ accounts.
  9. The resident’s MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 13 July 2021. The MP raised the resident’s concerns about the charges for the play area and bulky waste. The MP also said that the resident felt the landlord wasn’t taking account of her dyslexia.
  10. The resident contacted the landlord on 11 October 2021. She said she was still being charged for the play area. There was a cost for communal lighting on her bill which she believed was incorrect, as she paid her own electricity bill and had no communal hall in her building. She also raised caretaking costs and disputed the bulk-waste charge as she put out her own rubbish and this was collected by the council.
  11. On 18 October 2021, the landlord sent a complaint response. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said that:
    1. The resident should not have been charged for the play area and it had credited this charge back to her service charge account for 2019/2020, 2020/2021 and 2021/2022.
    2. The resident was only being charged for external lighting.
    3. The charge for the mobile caretaking was in addition to its regular caretaking costs. The mobile caretaker provided an additional service, responding to urgent matters such as gritting the estate after snowfall. The landlord said that this charge would remain on the resident’s service charge bill.
    4. Estimates for bulk waste collection were included each year. However, these were recredited to residents’ service charge accounts if no bulk waste collection had been necessary in the relevant financial year.
  12. The landlord sent a further complaint response on 28 October 2021. It again apologised for the delay in responding. It included a table in relation to service charges for past years. In recognition of the delays the resident had experienced in relation to her complaints, it offered £70 compensation.
  13. The resident complained to the Ombudsman as she had asked the landlord to remove the service charge for the play area from her estimated service charge bill and it had not done so.

Assessment

Scope of investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is not able to consider complaints relating to the level of service charge, including whether the service charge represents good value for money. The resident can find further information about the First Tier Tribunal service which considers disputes around service charges at https://www.gov.uk/courts-tribunals/first-tier-tribunal-property-chamber. However, this Service can investigate how the landlord responded to the resident’s queries about her service charge to assess whether its responses were reasonable and in line with its legal obligations.

Policies, procedures, and legislation

  1. The landlord’s service charge policy states that: “Where service charges are variable, the landlord assesses the actual costs incurred for the most recent financial year against the previous estimated costs of that year to set the coming year’s charge. If the actual costs were less than the estimates, then the landlord will refund the difference to the residents”.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer discretionary compensation as a goodwill gesture.
  3. The landlord’s complaint process has two stages. At stage one, a response will be provided within 10 working days. At stage two, a response will be provided within 20 working days. If an extension of time is needed at either stage, the landlord will contact the resident to explain why, and provide a response within 10 days.
  4. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (published on our website) which sets out best practice for member landlords, was first published in July 2020 and asked that landlords self-assess against the code by December 2020.
  5. Under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation to allow leaseholders to inspect the accounts or take copies or extracts from, receipts and other documents relating to their service charge. Residents must make this request in writing within six months of receiving their final service charge statement from the landlord.
  6. Under the Equalities Act 2010, landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who have a disability.

Assessment

The landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about her service charge.

  1. The resident complained about the service charge on 25 June 2020. The landlord agreed that she should not be charged for the play area on 29 October 2020. The landlord has acted reasonably by crediting the charge back to the resident for each financial year that she had been charged for it.
  2. However, on 12 April 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the charge for the play area had again been added to her estimated service charge bill for 2022/2023. On 26 May 2022, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been charged in error. It said it would recredit the charge and would ensure that the resident was not charged for the play area on future estimated or final service charge bills. This indicates that the landlord was able to remove elements of service charge that the resident was not liable for.
  3. The fact that the charge for the play area was still appearing on the resident’s service charge bill, over a year and a half after the landlord had agreed that she was not liable for it, was a failure that was entirely avoidable and caused time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident.
  4. The landlord acted appropriately by explaining the charges for a mobile caretaker and external lighting on the resident’s service charge bill. The landlord is entitled to charge for services it provides, and residents cannot opt out of having such services or paying for them.
  5. The landlord acted reasonably by explaining the charge for bulk waste collection on the resident’s estimated service charge bill. It said that if no bulk waste collection was necessary in any given year, this charge was removed from the final service charge bill. This is in line with the landlord’s service policy which states that if estimated costs exceed actual costs, the difference would be refunded to residents.
  6. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s request to provide evidence of its bulky waste collection. As this request was in response to an estimated service charge bill, the landlord had no legal duty to do so. Landlords are only obligated to provide this information if residents make this request in writing within six months of receiving their final service charge statement.
  7. However, in its response to the resident, the landlord could have explained that she had the right to request this information once she had received her final service charge statement. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that bulky waste collections were necessary for the year 2021/2022 and therefore the landlord was entitled to charge for this service.
  8. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance states that compensation of £100-£600 is appropriate where a resident has been adversely affected and the landlord has not acted to fully put things right. The landlord’s failures to fully respond to the resident’s complaints about her service charge, will have caused time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident. In the view of this Service, the resident should be offered £150 in compensation for these errors.

The associated complaint handling

  1. The resident first complained about the charge for the play area in June 2020. She did not receive a response to her complaint until October 2020, four months later. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code was not in effect when the resident first complained. However, the fact that it took four months to respond was an unreasonable delay.
  2. The landlord’s complaint responses do not include the dates on which the resident submitted her complaint, nor do they indicate at which stage of the process, the resident’s complaints were being considered. The landlord should have included this information to provide clarity for the resident.
  3. In February 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she had dyslexia and said that she would like the landlord to contact her by phone. The landlord’s records show that it did phone the resident in response to her complaints on several occasions. However, the resident has told this Service that since submitting her complaint, she has asked the landlord several times for a face-to-face appointment to discuss her service charge, but the landlord has not contacted her to arrange this, and it has not explained why it could not accommodate her request. The landlord has an obligation to make reasonable adjustments for residents with disabilities and should arrange an appointment with the resident to discuss her queries about her service charge. If the landlord is unable to arrange a face-to-face appointment, it should explain to the resident the reasons why it is not able to do so.
  4. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £70 to compensate her for the delays in its handling of her complaint. However, the landlord’s poor complaint handling will have caused significant time, trouble, and inconvenience for the resident. In the opinion of this Service additional compensation is due in view of this. As noted above, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states that where maladministration is identified that adversely affected the resident, compensation of £100-£600 should be considered. In the view of this Service, the resident should be offered an additional £230 in compensation.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it responded to the resident’s queries about her service charge.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord is ordered to do the following within four weeks of the date of this report, ensuring that evidence of compliance is provided to the Ombudsman by the same date:

  1. Pay the resident £150 for its failures in responding to her queries about her service charge.
  2. Pay the resident £230 for its handling of her complaint. This amount is in addition to the £70 compensation already offered to the resident through the landlord’s complaints process.

Recommendations

42. Carry out staff training to ensure that:

     a. All complaint responses contain the date on which the resident submitted their complaint.

     b. All complaint responses state clearly whether the response is a stage one or stage two response.