One Housing Group Limited (202118749)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118749

One Housing Group Limited

17 March 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

This complaint is about the resident’s reports of the landlord’s handling of:
1. The level of service charge.
2. The standard of the ground maintenance service paid for by way of service charge.
3. The administration of service charge account.
4. Non-residents parking on the estate.
5. The formal complaint throughout its internal complaints procedure.

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 of service charge.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme states “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”.
The resident raised a complaint that he was concerned about the increase in service charge estimates. In response the landlord had explained an inflationary uplift was applied to the original service charge estimates, in order to be more closely aligned to what the actual service charges would be.
Complaints of this nature may be better suited for the First Tier Tribunal – Property Chamber (FTTP). This is because the Ombudsman is not able to make a binding determination on the level or reasonableness of service charges. If a resident wishes to dispute the level of service charge which they are expected to pay, they can refer this to the FTTP, who can consider the level of service charges and issue a decision which is binding on all the parties.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord, a housing association, and has a shared ownership lease. The lease commenced on 23 December 2019 and the property is a two-bedroom flat.
The resident stated that, around April 2021, the landlord informed him of a slight increase in service charges.
On 21 June 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise a formal complaint. He explained that for several months he had been given the ‘run around’ and his concerns were not taken seriously. In his complaint, the resident said that that despite residents paying £50 per month for grounds maintenance and his efforts to inform the landlord that no grounds maintenance was taking place, this continued to be an issue. The resident felt that the landlord only wanted the grounds to continue to look nice for perspective buyers but, since selling the homes, it was not willing to provide the same level of service as previously. Further concerns were raised about the issue of non-resident parking. The resident said that this had been raised several times and he was told that the head of security would review the issue, however, the landlord had yet to act on the matter.
On 9 July 2021, the resident received a letter which explained that, due to miscommunication between the development team and property management, no grounds maintenance took place between November 2020 until July 2021 as there was no contract in place. It explained that payments made for these services by residents would be reconciled at the end of the financial year.
Following this, on 16 July 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to express concern about it charging residents for services which were not carried out. He also expressed upset about the length of time it would take for the landlord to credit residents. The resident was of the opinion that it was ‘fraudulent’ for the landlord to take money in lieu of a contract which it failed to deliver on. The resident further expressed concern about the frequency of visits, he explained that the previous contractors attended weekly, however under the new contract, visits would only take place bi-weekly. The resident expressed confusion over the fact that the service charge had slightly increased, but the services scheduled were less than before.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 27 July 2021. It understood the complaint to be about a lack of grounds maintenance and issues concerning non-resident parking.
In response to the lack of ground maintenance between November 2020 and July 2021, the landlord apologised to the resident. It explained there had been a breakdown in communication between the development team and property management team following the end of the 12-month defect process. The landlord said that it had recently written to all residents to clarify the error and further explained this to the resident. To resolve the matter the landlord had instructed a third-party contractor to complete regular ground maintenance starting on 2 July 2021. It also confirmed that following this error it was working closely with the development team, to ensure handovers in future were made clear with sufficient notice for the landlord to ensure there was a suitable service in place.
With regards to the service charge payments made towards ground maintenance, the landlord explained it would be reconciling its accounts for all its residents for the period during which no work took place. However, it would not be able to refund the service charge immediately and would need to wait until the end of the financial year.
The landlord stated it is common for grounds maintenance work to change from weekly to bi-weekly after the 12 months defect period. It felt that the decision to conduct bi-weekly maintenance was sufficient and explained service charge contributions would be adjusted in line with this for the next financial year. It further explained this could be amended in future.
The landlord said it was aware of the parking issues, was exploring several options with third party contractors as to how it could resolve the matter, and was awaiting quotes.
As the resident was unhappy with the response, he escalated the complaint to stage two of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 30 July 2021. He said he first reported the issue concerning grounds maintenance in April, and since then the landlord had mishandled the situation. The resident said the stage one response failed to address the following:
1. Acknowledge the 11 weeks it took for grounds maintenance to take place following the report.
2. The poor communication the resident received during this time, and the inconvenience caused to him by having to chase responses.
3. No goodwill gesture offer.
4. The landlord’s lack of acknowledgment about parking issues in the past.
5. How the landlord calculated an increase in service charges, despite not having a contract in place.
6. A streetlight shining in the rear of his property.
On 4 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to raise concerns about the quality of ground maintenance work. He said the contractors had left large areas unattended, did not complete weeding, poorly cut the grass and failed to clear up cuttings. He also provided images to support his claims.
Following this, on 12 August 2021, the landlord contacted its contractors to discuss the concerns. It also arranged for a quality check to take place.
During August and September 2021, the landlord had several conversations with the resident and internally on how best to tackle the issues concerning parking. This entailed considering methods such as enforcement arrangements, signage, permits, and sanctions.
On 17 August 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to state that it would aim provide him with a stage two response by 15 September 2021. Following this, it met with the resident on 25 August 2021, to discuss concerns.
The landlord provided a stage two response on 17 September 2021. It apologised for the delays and lack of responses. It explained that it was standard practice to reconcile service charge amounts collected on estimates against costs incurred and this was in line with the resident’s lease and the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985. It also explained it was unable to amend service charges part way through the year. It stated that the current estimate of service charges was calculated to incorporate an inflationary uplift to the original estimates.
The landlord clarified that it had put an interim contract in place to take care of grounds maintenance, however it planned to consult with residents in regard to further contracts.
With regards to non-resident parking, the landlord acknowledged that this was discussed during a meeting on 25 August 2021. Signage had been placed on the estate; however, this had since been removed by an unknown party. The landlord explained it was in the process of having this replaced.
The landlord apologised for the issues concerning a streetlight shining into the resident’s home and explained it had arranged for a survey to take place on 13 September 2021.
It offered £50 to recognise the poor quality of the stage one complaint response and £150 in recognition of the poor communication experienced by the resident.
As the resident remained unsatisfied with the landlord’s response, the complaint was sent to this service for adjudication.

Assessment and findings

We understand the resident’s complaint is concerning service charges. As set out earlier, the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the level of a service charge, but can assess whether, when considering issues, the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably, considering all the circumstances of the case – which this investigation goes on to do.
The resident wrote to us on 20 January 2023 to raise further issues regarding cladding, mould, and other matters after the issues in this investigation had completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As these matters were not included as part of the landlord’s initial investigation, they are outside of the scope of this investigation. This is in accordance with 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.

The standard of the ground maintenance service paid for by way of service charge.

The resident was dissatisfied with the lack of communication when reporting his concerns to the landlord about the grounds maintenance. We have not seen specific evidence as to when he first reported the issues, however we have noted the resident’s email dated 21 June 2021, where he expressed frustration in chasing the landlord in regards to ground maintenance. Prior to the resident’s email, grounds maintenance had not been done for a period of six months.
The landlord’s response timeframesstates that it aims to respond to queries within two working days with either a response or to let the resident know that it needs to pass the matter to a colleague in one of its specialist teams. If the query is passed on, it will aim to respond within 10 working days. However, If the query is particularly complex and more time is needed to deal with it, the landlord would inform the resident.
In this instance as the information is limited, it is unclear what steps the landlord followed. However, the landlord’s formal complaint response acknowledged service failings with regard to communication with the resident.
Given the circumstances, the landlord was correct to consider its compensation policy and offer the resident £150 for lack of communication.
The landlord’s compensation policy states in instances of inconvenience, at the discretion of the landlord, a goodwill gesture may be paid towards time, trouble, distress etc. For failure to meet its service standards, payment varies from £25 to £250.
We understand the level of inconvenience caused to the resident by the lack of communication. However, the landlord was proactive in apologising and compensated the resident appropriately. The issues concerning ground maintenance were in communal areas and whilst we recognise the upset this caused the resident, as this was external to the resident’s home, there was no significant impact on his day-to-day living. Therefore and taken altogether we find the amount offered is considered reasonable.
The evidence shows grounds maintenance was not completed for the period of November 2020 until July 2021. Despite this, residents of the estate paid £50 each per month for the service. We understand the landlord had stated it would reimburse the residents £500 in the form of reconciling its accounts at the end of the financial year, however the resident was unhappy about this and wanted a direct refund immediately.
Section 5.3(d) of the resident’s lease agreement states ‘if the landlord’s estimate of the estate charge is more than the estate charge, the Landlord shall credit the difference against the leaseholder’s next instalment of the estate charge (and where the difference exceeds the next instalment then the balance of the difference shall be credited against each succeeding instalment until it is fully credited).’
Section 11 of the landlord’s compensation and other payments procedure is in reference to key communal facilities payments. It states that the landlord does not refund service charges as these are paid for the maintenance and upkeep of facilities and not the running costs. There is no further mention of what is expected in instances where services paid for are not being fulfilled.
Given the above and the fact that the payments were a portion of the service charge, the landlord’s actions were in accordance to its terms. We understand the inconvenience this would have caused the resident, however the landlord has provided evidence to support that it would commit to reconciling the accounts, which in effect would not result in the resident losing out.
It is understood that the landlord had an interim arrangement in place whilst it planned a wider procurement process for its gardening and grounds maintenance contracts.
During August 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the grounds maintenance provided by the interim contractors. He said that prior to the landlord changing its contractors, the premises were well maintained and up to standards. However, with the interim ground maintenance team in place, the work was of a poor standard. In particular he had complained about:
1. No weeding.
2. Poorly cut grass.
3. Cuttings not being removed.
4. The length of time taken to do the works.
In response, the landlord followed these up with the contractor via email and during weekly meetings to ensure that concerns were addressed. The evidence shows that the landlord also arranged for teams to be on site to address the concerns and areas which may have been missed. Quality checks were also conducted in an effort to observe the standard of works.
Overall, the landlord’s response to address the resident’s concerns about the quality of work was proactive. The landlord was correct to address the concerns with the contractor and it took reasonable steps to address the concerns raised.
Regarding the change of frequency in grounds maintenance, It is understood that the resident was unhappy with the reduction in service level and wanted the landlord to change the amount being charged in order to reflect the frequency of work. The resident explained that the new grounds maintenance contractor only provided 25% of the labour of the previous contract as they only attended fortnightly instead of weekly, but the cost to residents was the same, he felt that this should have been reduced proportionately to actual costs being incurred.
In response the landlord explained that it does not change estimated service charges part way through the year and any overpayments would be reconciled.
Although we have not seen the schedule of works for the previous contractors, we have reviewed the contractor’s summer and winter schedule of works and it covers grounds maintenance for the estate. It is within a landlord’s discretion to decide how a schedule of works should be implemented in regard to quantity and length of time per month, taking into account a number of considerations including cost effectiveness and feedback from residents. We understand that the landlord had explained to the resident this contractor was only in place as an interim arrangement, and once it found suitable replacement it would consult with its residents. In our opinion, this is reasonable.

The landlord’s administration of the service charge account.

The resident had asked for a breakdown of service charges actual costs on a few occasions. In response he had been informed, “The original service charge budget would have been produced before the development handed over. These estimated costs would have been based on similarly sized and designed developments. When the actualised accounts for the previous financial years are finalised, the landlord will be able to send you all of the supporting information for those costs incurred.”
Whilst we understand the landlord’s reasons for not being able to provide the accurate costs at the time, it should now be in a position to provide this information to the resident.
We have not seen any records to show the breakdown of costs for service charges, however, it is clear that the resident would benefit from a written breakdown of the current service charge that clearly sets out which services have been included in the budget, with reference to the area of the estate that these charges relate to. This will equip the resident with the information he needs to query any aspects of the service charge that he feels are unreasonable or have been levied in error.

The landlord’s handling of non-residents parking on the estate.

The resident had raised concerns to the landlord about non-residents parking on the estate, stating that other residents had also complained about this issue but nothing had been done to resolve the matter. He said that the landlord had not offered to put up a private road or resident only parking sign at its own cost to help alleviate the parking problem.
The evidence shows that, following the resident’s concerns, the landlord considered methods in order to prevent the misuse of parking areas by non-residents. The landlord also arranged for a discussion to take place with residents during August 2021 about ways to resolve the matter.
Following the discussions the landlord considered methods to resolve the parking issues, including having car park management enforcement, signs advising non-residents of sanctions, visitors permits, and having vehicles without permits receiving penalty charge notices. The landlord also considered having clearly designated parking bays/areas. Subsequently the landlord arranged to have signage put up.
We have not seen evidence as when this signage was put up, however it is evident this was done prior to the stage two response to the resident. In its stage two response the landlord had explained that it had put up signage stating, ‘resident parking only’, but this was removed by an unknown party, as a result it was in the process of putting this sign back up.
Overall the landlord’s actions to resolve the matter were proactive, it was correct to consult with its residents and look for methods in order to resolve the matter.
We have not seen evidence to suggest that the parking issues remain, however in the event that it is still an ongoing issue, the landlord should consider other available methods in an attempt to resolve the parking issue.
The resident felt the cost of implementing no parking signs and double yellow lines should be at the cost of the landlord and not residents. Whilst we acknowledge the resident’s thoughts, as this would be actions to benefit the estate it is reasonable for these costs to be considered as part of service charge.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out what is expected of landlords when responding to resident’s complaints. It explains that a two-stage complaint procedure is ideal. In this instance the landlord has two complaint stages and provided the resident with two formal responses.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaints procedure, it states at stage one it will aim to resolve complaints within 10 working days and this should not exceed a further 10 days without a good reason. For stage two it will aim to respond within 20 working days. This also should not exceed 10 working days without a good reason.
In this instance the resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 21 June 2021, however this was not responded to and left unanswered which resulted in the resident having to chase a response. He did not receive a stage one response until 27 July 2021. In the response he was unhappy that the landlord failed to address all his complaint points. He requested for this to be escalated on 30 July 2021, but did not receive a stage two response until 17 September 2021.
It is clear that the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint exceeded its timeframes. However it apologised for the delay and considered its compensation policy, thus offering the resident £50 for poor quality of the stage one response and a further £150 for poor communication.
In our opinion, the landlord was correct to apply its compensation policy as there was a clear delay in responding to the resident. We have reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy. Section 13 of the compensation policy, states in circumstances where the resident has experienced inconvenience, the landlord may use its discretion to offer a gesture of goodwill payment, which can vary between £25 to £250. This is applicable is circumstances where there has been a failure to meet service standards.
Whilst we acknowledge that the delay caused inconvenience and upset to the resident, the landlord was proactive in apologising and offered above the minimum for compensation. It is our view that the apology and amount offered was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of its handling of the standard of the ground maintenance service paid for by way of service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s administration of the resident’s service charge account.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of non-residents parking on the estate.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in respect of the failings in how it handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

It was appropriate for the landlord to reimburse the residents for paid services that were not carried out. It also was effective in addressing the quality of work of contractors and put measures in place to access this. The landlord acknowledged where there was poor communication and awarded compensation which the Ombudsman considers fair and reasonable.
There was no service failure in the landlord’s administration of service charge accounts. Its reasons for why it was unable to provide actual costs at the time were satisfactory.
The landlord made proportionate attempts to resolve the issues concerning parking.
The landlord acknowledged its failings, apologised to the resident and compensated him fairly for the failings in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendation

The landlord to provide the resident with a written breakdown of the current service charge that clearly sets out which services have been included in the budget, with reference to the area of the estate that these charges relate to. This should be provided within four weeks of the date of this letter. Should the landlord be unable to provide this information within this timeframe it should write to the resident to inform him of when it aims to provide this information. This should be completed within a reasonable period of time and not exceed two months.