Clarion Housing Association Limited (202126885)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126885

Clarion Housing Association Limited

19 January 2024

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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s queries about the administration and breakdown of her service charges; and
   2. The subsequent complaint.

Background

2. The resident occupies a property under a secure tenancy commencing. The property is a one bedroom, ground floor flat.
3. On 17 September 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that the estimated service charges for 2020/2021 for her property, which were forecast to be £134.81, were £815.71. It said because there was a difference of £680.71 (‘the underestimated charges’) the resident was liable for this. As a result, it would be adding this to the rent charges breakdown for 2022/2023.
4. The resident explained to the landlord that because she received housing benefit during 2020/2021, the local authority’s housing benefit department had agreed to pay the underestimated charges. To do this, the local authority told the resident that it required a breakdown of the service charges to authorise the payment.
5. Between 29 November 2021 and 15 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of the underestimated charges to enable the local authority to authorise payment. On 30 March 2022, it provided the breakdown to the resident. The resident told her landlord and this service that the local authority authorised the payment of the underestimated charges on 5 May 2022.
6. On 23 February 2023, the landlord issued the resident with the annual breakdown of her rent and service charges for 2022/2023 and explained that £13.10 of the weekly service charges was to account for the debt accrued for the underestimated charges.
7. On 6 March 2022, the resident raised a formal complaint because the landlord had failed to provide her with the breakdown of the service charges and had delayed its communication with her. In its stage 1 response dated 28 March 2022, it apologised for its delay in responding to her and offered £50. It also explained that the underestimated charges were reactive charges but it did not provide a detailed summary to her.
8. On 17 August 2022, the resident escalated her complaint. She told the landlord that she wanted to set up a direct debit for her weekly rent and service charges and for the figure to consider the payment made by the local authority for the underestimated charges. The landlord issued its final response on 18 November 2022. It said that it could not adjust the weekly figure because the figure factored in the debt on her account for the underestimated charges. It also offered her an additional £100 for its delay in issuing its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

9. The Ombudsman’s remit is set out in the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’). Paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which concern the level or increase of service charges (and/or rent).
10. This means that it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide whether the charge or increase is correct. What this service can assess is whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns that the resident raised.

The landlord’s handling of the administration and breakdown of service charges.

11. The tenancy agreement appears to only list a fixed service charge. It does not permit the landlord to charge or increase the cost to the resident. Though it is clear that it has done this, the landlord has not explained why it is permitted to claim the additional charges in its complaint response or to the Ombudsman.
12. In any event, the resident told the landlord that the local authority had paid for the underestimated charges for 2020/2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence from either the resident or the landlord of the payment made by the local authority.
13. It would have been open to the landlord to have reviewed payments from the local authority for the resident’s address and to have queried this or to have been clear that no such payment had been received.
14. Based on the above – the landlord has not been clear on the basis it is entitled to make the charges or whether it fully reviewed incoming payments from the local authority. This is a failure by the landlord.
15. Therefore, the Ombudsman will order the landlord to conduct a review of the service charge account to ensure that it has investigated thoroughly if the resident’s current rental breakdown should encompass the Underestimated Charges. This is to be shared with both the resident and this service.

Breakdown request for the service charges

16. Between 29 November 2021 and 15 February 2022, the resident asked the landlord for a breakdown of the underestimated charges. This was so that the local authority could authorise a housing benefit payment to the landlord to clear them. The landlord provided the resident with the breakdown 53 working days later, on 30 March 2022. During the time the resident was requesting a breakdown the evidence shows that the landlord:
    1. Passed the resident between different teams that could not answer her query.
    2. Referred her query to different teams, some of which were not customer-facing meaning that only the landlord could internally contact the team on her behalf.
    3. Made telephone appointments with the resident that were missed, without prior notification or explanation.
    4. Failed to respond to several emails, calls and letters from the resident about this issue.
    5. When it did respond to some of her emails it did not take the time initially to understand the resident’s query. It then delayed in providing her with a response, which she had to chase.
17. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord unreasonably delayed in handling the resident’s query. This resulted in a lot of time and trouble, as well as distress and inconvenience on the part of the resident, in having to persistently chase the landlord to find out which team was responsible for providing her with the requested breakdown.
18. The Ombudsman expects landlords to have sufficient knowledge of its internal departments to ensure that specialised queries can be referred directly to the team in question. Additionally, teams responsible for providing information to residents about the services that it administers should be easily contactable.

The landlord’s handling of the subsequent complaint

19. The landlord’s complaint policy states that stage 1 responses should be responded to within 10 working days and its stage 2 responses within 20 working days. It also states that it will listen and ensure it understands the complaint.
20. In its stage 1 response dated 28 March 2022, the landlord provided a summary of why there were underestimated charges. However, this summary was not a breakdown as requested by the resident because it did not provide the crucial figures that correlated to each of the reactive works. This further delayed the resident in providing the local authority with the required information, which went to the heart of the complaint.
21. It is clear from the evidence that the resident made several requests for a breakdown. Had the landlord taken the time to understand the resident’s query, it may have been able to provide a comprehensive answer without the need for a formal complaint. The landlord failed, during the complaint procedure, to put things right by answering her query once again. That was not appropriate.
22. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 17 August 2022 because she wanted to have her weekly payment adjusted to factor in the underestimated charges being settled by the local authority. The landlord issued its final response on 18 November 2022. This was 66 working days later and was outside the timeframes set in the landlord’s complaints policy. In the response, it acknowledged its delay and offered the resident £100 compensation, in addition to the £50 already offered at stage 1.
23. The landlord failed to undertake a thorough investigation into the complaint and to see whether the underestimated charges had, at that point, been cleared from the resident’s account.
24. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation, is in the Ombudsman’s opinion, insufficient to remedy the failures of the landlord in respect of its complaint handling and failure to respond to the resident’s core complaint at both stages of its complaint procedure.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s query about the administration and breakdown of her service charges.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the subsequent complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

27. The Ombudsman orders the landlord, within 28 days of this determination, to:
    1. review the resident’s tenancy and explain to the resident and this service why it is permitted to charge a variable service charge. If it is permitted to make the charges, it must:
       1. Provide a full breakdown of the charges including amounts for each aspect of the service.
       2. Explain what percentage of the overall charge the resident is responsible for.
    2. Review the rent and service charge accounts to establish if the underestimated charges have been settled and share its findings with this service and the resident.
    3. Pay the resident an additional £350 in compensation made up of:
       3. £200 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s request for a breakdown of her service charges.
       4. £150 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
    4. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendations

28. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord consider conducting a review of the accessibility of its service charges department to ensure that resident queries are answered promptly.