Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202110059)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202110059

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

26 July 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:
1. The landlord’s delivery of communal services including window cleaning and grounds maintenance services charged for through service charges.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries concerning her service charges.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries concerning the level of her service charges.
4. Complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

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 landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries concerning the level of her service charges.
Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider 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 may wish to refer this aspect of her complaint to the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) who consider service charge disputes between leaseholders and landlords.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner and has an underlease that commenced on 12 July 2019 with her landlord. The property is a one bedroom flat in a new development within a purpose built block.
Her landlord is a tenant of a “superior landlord”. The superior lease commenced on 26 April 2019. An estate management company is a party to the superior lease and is responsible for estate services including grounds maintenance. The superior landlord is responsible for “maintaining, repairing and renewing those parts of the building not comprising the flat or the other flats to include, not limited to, the balcony/terrace, roof, roof structures, foundations, external walls, internal load-bearing walls, structural timers and joists. It is also responsible for “cleaning and decorating the common parts of the building and exterior areas and for “cleaning the windows and other glass of the common parts of the building and the outside of the windows and other glass of the building (including the flat)”. It is required under 4.20 to “clean the inside of all windows and window frames in the flat at least once every month”.
The landlord is required to pay service charges to the superior landlord in respect of the services provided. The superior landlord is required to provide the landlord an account of the service charge payable after the end of the financial year.
The resident’s shared ownership underlease sets out the obligations of the resident. The underlease sets out the responsibilities for the resident to pay the rent on the remaining share of the property as well as service charges that relate to the “superior lease” for estate management services or other sums payable by the landlord.
1. The resident is required to:
  1. “Repair and keep the premises (including the surface of any balcony or terrace or patio… clean and in good and substantial repair and condition”.
  2. To “give notice to the landlord of any defects or want of repair in the premises or the building or the common parts”.
  3. “Permit the landlord and its employees, its surveyor or agents at reasonable times on notice (or at any time in an emergency) to enter the premises”. This is to “comply with its tenant covenants under the superior lease”, and also to “examine their condition and also to take a schedule of fixtures and fittings in the premises”.
The landlord’s service charge policy details:
1. That the landlord will “consult residents before any services are added or withdrawn”. It will “involve customers in the monitoring of service provision and will obtain information from service charge payers on their level of satisfaction with the services and standards of services provided”.
2. “If a resident believes that the process taken does not reflect what has been stated in the policy, or they are unhappy about anything related to the policy, they may appeal through the complaints policy”.
Section 19 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 in respect of service charges sets out that “relevant costs shall be taken into account in determining the amount of a service charge payable for a period:
1. Only to the extent that they are reasonably incurred, and
2. Where they are incurred on the provision of services or the carrying out of works, only if the services or works are of a reasonable standard”.
A leaseholder may challenge the reasonableness of a service charge by applying to the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The landlord’s service charge demands must include a summary of the leaseholder’s rights and obligations including the right to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal.
Section 20B of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord must make a demand for payment of costs incurred no more than 18 months after the cost was incurred. However, if the landlord had informed a resident that costs had been incurred within 18 months and that the leaseholder would be required “under the terms of his lease to contribute to them by the payment of a service charge” then this is permitted.
Section 20 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to consult leaseholders for “any qualifying works or qualifying long term agreement”. The qualifying works are those that would cost any leaseholder more than £250.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge complaints within five working days. It will respond at stage one within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days. Exclusions apply to the complaints policy. This includes “complaints about rent increases or service charges or their reasonableness”.
The landlord’s compensation policy details:
1. Three categories of compensation –
  1. “mandatory payments for home loss, disturbance, improvements and payments under the Right to Repair scheme” which applies to local authority tenants.
  2. Quantifiable loss payments such as “increased heating bills due to disrepair, paying for alternative accommodation, or for cleaning and carrying out repairs” where the landlord “has failed to meet its obligations”.
  3. Discretionary payments for “poor complaint handling, delays in providing our services such as repairs, failure to provide a service” and also for a “temporary loss of amenity(ies)” and “failure to meet our target response times”,
2. Levels of compensation range from “an apology” to £151 for “failure of service” and “time and trouble”, up to £300 for reimbursement “in the event of MTVH causes loss or damages as part of any actions taken, evidence will be required”. It will pay “£10 per missed appointment, up to a maximum of £50”.
The landlord’s grounds maintenance, external cleaning, internal cleaning, window cleaning and tree surveys are carried out by an external supplier. The service specification details:
1. Its inspection management regime uses the housemark photobook platform to carry out and manage its inspections. The platform allows landlords to track performance. According to the specification the standards are scored “immediately following a visit”.
2. The landlord as the “client” was to establish a “contract management board” with senior officers to review the operational delivery, and monitor the key performance indicators and to undertake an annual service review.
3. The landlord and contractor is to hold “monthly operational partnership meetings”. The partnership would “ensure effective day to day delivery of the contract and to receive and review monthly performance reports”.
4. “Joint inspections shall be undertaken on a monthly basis by the authorised officer or their delegates and the supplier to ensure that both performance and the assessment thereof is being undertaken in line with the housemark standards”. A commitment of “at least five joint inspections shall be undertaken each month”.
5. Tree works are to be “undertaken through the surveying programme”. Trees are then to be “re-inspected every year” or “every three years” depending on the location. Risk assessments assist in determining the priority of work to be undertaken. However reactive works required should meet the following timescales:
  1. Out of hours – within 24 hours.
  2. Emergency – “within 24 hours where the order is placed during working hours”.
  3. Appointed – “within 28 calendar days (unless otherwise specified)”.
  4. “BES – within 90 calendar days (unless otherwise specified)”. The specification does not clarify what BES stands for.
6. Cleaning is to be undertaken on a weekly basis.
7. Window cleaning is to be undertaken on a three monthly basis.
8. Grounds maintenance is to be undertaken on a fortnightly basis.
The landlord has advised this Service on 7 July 2023 that the external windows are cleaned with a reach and wash equipment. It advised that due to the equipment used, some issues occur with a small number of windows being left with streaks following the window cleaning. These properties are then offered a recall visit. The landlord provided a sample of its contract monitoring with its internal and external cleaning contractor from 2021 and these inspections are detailed in the summary of events. It advises that it undertakes joint inspections with its internal cleaning contractor. The landlord submitted evidence to this Service on 7 July 2023 of its inspection regime from 2023 to monitor its contractor’s performance in relation to grounds maintenance and cleaning inspections through joint visits with its estates team and contract manager from the service provider. This details that a minimum of 25 “inspections per month per contract/lot” are carried out and scored. As the information postdates the resident’s complaint this is referred to as background information.
The resident submitted two complaints to this Service, both of which concern the complaint elements considered in this investigation. As the landlord’s complaints policy excludes complaints concerning service charges, the resident’s complaint of 3 October 2021 was dealt with as a service charge complaint by the landlord. The resident confirmed to this Service that the elements of her complaint that she wished to be included in this investigation are the landlord’s handling of and response to enquiries concerning service charges; the window and balcony cleaning not being done or done satisfactorily and grounds maintenance particularly regarding tree pruning not be done or done satisfactorily. This reports focusses on these aspects of the resident’s complaints to her landlord. In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme this investigation considers the period from six months prior to the resident’s formal stage one complaint made on 6 May 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising”,. The landlord, Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing is sometimes referred to as MTVH in the quotes contained within this report.

Summary of events

The landlord’s window cleaning contractor conducted an audit of its window cleaning service on 12 January 2021. In this it stated that all of the areas were “able to be cleaned”. A number of photographs were included within the report showing the windows being cleaned. The photographs were not dated and it is unclear whether they were taken on the date of the audit.
The landlord sent a service charge statement to the resident on 22 February 2021 estimating the rent service charges for the period 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. A typographical error was made on the covering letter regarding the new charge which it stated would apply “from 1 April 2020”. The paragraph above read that the charge would apply from 1 April 2021. The new charge from 1 April 2021 was quoted as being £490.49 comprising £404.89 per month rent and £85.60 per month for a service charge.
The landlord’s window cleaning schedule detailed that the external windows were due for cleaning on 7 to 8 April 2021. The landlord’s records do not detail the actual date that the block containing the resident’s property’s windows were cleaned.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2021 regarding a query concerning cctv and her financial statements. She advised that “our service charges have significantly gone up and yet there are no current available annual statements of spends for previous years”. The landlord responded on 27 April 2021 concerning the cctv query and sent a separate email regarding the financial statements. It advised in this further email that “revised financial statements 2018/19 and 2019/20 have been drafted”. It was awaiting “outcomes of the review of estate coordination services which will need to be incorporated”. It would then “proceed to publishing the statements”. It advised that the 2020/21 service charge financial statements “will be published as scheduled in Autumn 2021”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 April 2021 to advise that the “fact that as far back as 2018” the financial statements were “not yet available and yet you have miraculously calculated cost of ambiguous reactive works” was “concerning”. In another email sent by the resident on 28 April 2021 she asked for clarification as to the use of “generic headings on our service bill” that did not relate to the specific location. She stated that “we pay but do not have security onsite”. The landlord emailed back the same day asking for a colleague to respond regarding the “generic headings”.
The landlord’s internal cleaning contractor conducted an internal cleaning inspection on 30 April 2021. In this it provided photographs of the communal areas of the block containing the resident’s property and reported “good” standards with “low levels of removable stains/dirt/litter” being present at the time the cleaning was carried out. The landlord’s external cleaning contractor also conducted an external cleaning inspection the same day that indicated an “excellent” rating regarding litter and no rating for the area being “clear of weeds and moss”. Both inspection reports were signed by the landlord’s representative.
The resident submitted a formal Stage 1 complaint on 6 May 2021. In this she queried the level of charges including costs of cleaning; the standard of cleaning, whether it tendered for the cleaning contractor, infrequency of window cleaning and lack of tree pruning causing a nuisance from birds. She stated that:
1. Her service charge had “gone up by over £900 annually”. When queried with the landlord she had been advised that the “service charges for 2020/2021 had been incorrect due to a technical error”. She reported that the landlord had advised that this was due to an “employee inputting the incorrect figures into a computer”. She states that the landlord advised that she would be paying “an additional £75.88 per month this year”. She states that the landlord advised that she should “also concurrently be building up credit with MTVH for an imminent bill for the shortfall”. She questioned the reasonableness of this.
2. She referred to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1995 and that under this the landlord is “required to make only reasonable increases to rent and service charges”. She stated that she had been “assured” by staff in October 2019 that “a service charge of £9.72 was correct”.
3. A query concerning the amount of the “monthly cleaning costs”. She states that these had “multiplied more than ten times”. She was “now required to pay £162.36 a year towards internal cleaning, compared to previous years of £14.76 and £15.75”.
4. The “standard of the cleaning service, especially during a 14 month pandemic has been significantly below par”. She alleged that “there has evidently been less cleaning and staff presence on site”. The landlord had “begun to ramp up” the cleaning “towards the end of April, in response to a shed-load of complaints from residents”. The carpets “remain dirty and stained for the last six months, lift buttons, the lift floor and the mirror is repeatedly uncleaned and the lift doors have smudges and stains still evident”.
5. She had asked the landlord when the cleaning contract had gone out to tender and about the number of competitive tenders received but “received no clarity on this matter and “then received notice” that the landlord was “renewing several of their contracts”.
6. She alleged that she had received the window cleaning service “just twice in the last 14 months and my balcony only once”. She referred to a clause 4.20 in her lease which she stated that the landlord must “clean the inside of all windows and window frames in the flat at least once every month”. She wished to be “compensated for the last 14 months and to not be charged until window cleaning is of a satisfactory standard”.
7. She reported the “public health and safety” of an “unpruned tree” in 2019. She stated that the “over extended branches were almost touching balconies and therefore causing swarms of pigeons to congregate”. The pigeons were “littering them with faeces and the ground below”. She states that this was followed up in “September 2020” and she had not received any response.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint by email on 7 May 2021.
The landlord’s leasehold services team emailed the resident on 10 May 2021 to clarify the points raised in the resident’s earlier email of 28 April 2021 concerning the charges for “security and cctv”. In this email it stated that “security is an indirect benefit of the cctv network’s presence on site”. It stated that the “monthly charge for the services apportioned to the subject is £1.07 as per the attached interim service charge budget 2021/22”. The resident emailed back to advise that she had by this time submitted her complaint. In a further email from the landlord of 10 May 2021 the landlord advised the resident that “there have been multiple emails exchanged”. It stated that “should there be any areas which require further elaboration/clarification, please do let us know, so we can advise you accordingly”. The resident emailed the landlord back the same day to state that “the reason for submitting my formal complaint is that you were unable to provide satisfactory responses to my queries”.
In an internal email of 12 May 2021 an officer within the landlord’s leasehold services team advised:
1. The team had been “engaged in extensive communication with the resident”. It advised that “all the points the resident have raised within the complaint letter have been covered in the communication exchanged to date”.
2. It would be willing to “hold a telephone conversation/video meeting” if she required “further clarification”.
3. It stated that the “interim service charge 2021/22 is the most accurate and reflective of expenditure the scheme is expected to incur in accounting period 2021/22”. It advised that as the scheme is “new built, such exercise leading to setting a more accurate interim service charge as the scheme ages is a norm, rather than a rare occurrence”.
4. It had reviewed the resident’s charges for the period up to 1 April 2021. It advised that the “service charge has seen a substantial increase in percentage terms. However in monetary terms it went up to a reasonable level of £48.69 per month” It had advised the resident that for the “accounting period 2020/2021 to expect to see a substantial debit end of year balancing charge given it saw interim service charge set at a low side”. It had agreement to “allow the resident to clear the resulting debit balance on their tenant account until 31 March 2022 by means of equal monthly payments”. It advised that the resident had “confirmed in the complaint letter that they received the advice”. It had advised the resident that “all affected residents will be pre-advised of this situation later in May 2021, well in advance of publication of service charge financial statements 2020/21 due in September 2021”.
5. It had seen that the resident referred to the “first set of reconciled service charge financial statement for a part-period of their occupancy 2019/20 which produced a credit of £162.97 that was applied to their tenant account on 11 September 2020”. It advised that the statement was undergoing review and that the credit “may increase”. It could not confirm this however. It advised that the ”resident will not be financially prejudiced as a result of the review”.
An internal email of 12 May 2021 advised of the resident’s report of the “unpruned tree on the corner” of the block. It asked that a quote is sought for “crown reduction if required”.
The landlord’s contractor conducted an internal cleaning inspection on 14 May 2021 containing a number of photographs, though the photographs are undated. It recorded that the standards were “good”. It recorded “low levels of removable stains/dirt/litter”. On the same day the landlord’s contractor conducted an external cleaning inspection that reported that the area was assessed as “good” with “low levels of litter”, and “low levels of weeds and moss”. This inspection report was not signed by the landlord.
The landlord emailed its cleaning contractor on 18 May 2021 to request its response in relation to the resident’s complaint. The cleaning contractor responded the same day to advise of its recent cleaning inspections. It stated this had been carried out by the contract manager and a colleague of the contractor. It was “satisfied” that a “good level of cleaning” was being achieved. It had advised that it had been “short of staff due to sickness, annual leave etc but we have covered this with the use of overtime and therefore the frequency of cleaning has not been affected”.
The landlord’s internal emails of 20 May 2021 stated that it had asked its contractor to “reattend and provide a quote for crown reduction” in relation to the tree.
The landlord sent its Stage 1 response on 20 May 2021. In this it responded to the resident’s queries; it was in the process of finalising the cleaning costs, it had investigated the cleaning service and had advised on the quarterly window cleaning and had assessed no works required to the trees. It advised that:
1. It was “unable to reimburse any costs incurred as there is a separate process for service charge disputes that we do not investigate under the complaints process”. It had “escalated this matter to our senior leasehold and service charge officer who has confirmed that our leasehold and service charge team have been engaged in extensive communication” with the resident. It advised that all the points raised by the resident regarding service charges “have been responded to in the communication exchanged to date”. It advised that if the resident required further clarification it could “hold a telephone conversation/video meeting to discuss these further” and provided a contact email.
2. It advised that it had not “increased cleaning costs by ten times, although they have increased by approximately 15%”. This was due to the landlord “currently in the process of reprocuring estate services nationally”. Once contracts were “mobilised in the other regions” which did not include the estate containing the resident’s property, the specification would increase. This was due to the fact that there was “a clear need to introduce annual deep cleans”. There was also a “bespoke need to introduce external panel cleaning”. There had been a “consumer price index increase to be applied to the base line cost for the financial year 21/22”. The landlord was working with its contractor to “finalise actual costs for the financial year 21/22”.
3. With regard to tree pruning it advised that the resident had initial raised the issue in January 2020 with her housing officer who explained that she “would follow this up”. It identified that there had been “poor levels of communication and there have been delays in responding to you”. The matter was brought to the landlord’s estates contracts officer in “June 2020”. He had reported back that the “trees were not impacting on the building at the time, therefore no works were required”. It appreciated that this had not been “communicated to you at the time”. It apologised for this. It had asked its contractor to “quote for a crown reduction (to reduce the overall size of the tree) if required”. This “would be actioned accordingly”.
4. It had “escalated” the resident’s concerns regarding internal and external cleaning to its “grounds maintenance team to investigate”. This had been raised with its contractor. It advised that “since the beginning of the pandemic their focus has been on disinfecting touch points, surfaces, handles etc to reduce the risk of germs being spread”. It had been “short of staff due to sickness and annual leave”. However, this had been covered “with the use of overtime and therefore the frequency of cleaning has not been affected”. The contractor had “employed new staff so that they have a dedicated team leader on site to oversee the day-to-day service”. The “supervisor has also confirmed that he has carried out multiple site inspections and the level of cleaning has always been completed to a satisfactory standard.” It had received confirmation from a “residents’ meeting” from “several residents” who had informed the landlord that “they were happy with the level of cleaning that has been carried out”.
5. It confirmed that “window cleaning has been carried out quarterly since October 2020.
6. The complaint was “partially upheld” and an apology was given for “the distress”. It offered £50 compensation.
The landlord’s records detail that the resident sent her stage two escalation request on 20 May 2021. However, it is not clear whether the complaint escalation was made by telephone call as there is no email from this date. The landlord sent its stage two acknowledgement on 24 May 2021 advising that the resident could expect “an initial response by 18 June 2021”.
The landlord issued a revised service charge certificate dated 7 July 2021 for the period 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 show the resident’s contribution as “#N/A”. This was prior to the resident moving into the property.
Also on 7 July 2021 the landlord issued a letter and statement for the period “2019/20” ending 31 March 2020. The statement shows that the total expenditure for the resident’s share of £331.96 was less than the estimated costs of £558.83 covered by service charges. The statement details that a credit was applied to the account of £226.87.
The landlord’s window cleaning schedule detailed that the external windows were due for cleaning between 7 to 8 July 2021. Its records do not detail that the work was completed.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 15 July 2021, which was 39 working days after the resident submitted her stage two escalation request. In this it detailed:
1. The resident’s query about “service charges is being dealt with directly by our service charges team who will respond to you directly”.
2. It apologised in respect of the tree pruning that was “not deemed as necessary” and it “did not keep you informed of this decision”.
3. In respect of the internal and external cleaning it advised that “action has been taken by our estates team to address the cleaning to a satisfactory level”. This was “in line with agreed schedules of tasks being conducted and attendance”. The landlord had been provided with “evidence that window cleaning was carried out in April”. However, it had asked the “estates team to monitor this moving forward and monitor quality to make sure any issues with this have been resolved”. It would continue to “maintain window cleaning on a quarterly basis”.
4. It had decided to “partially uphold” the resident’s complaint. It was confident that “the individual issues you are experiencing, such as service charge increase, is being handled by the relevant teams in an efficient manner”. It would “continue to work closely with you to ease your concerns and address any issues you raise to us”. It had “highlighted your case to the relevant managers to ensure a similar situation can be prevented in the future”.
5. It apologised for the delay in sending its formal response which “admittedly has fallen outside of our service expectations”.
6. It offered an “additional £125 redress” along with the “£50 offered at stage one” for distress.
The landlord’s arboriculture consultancy carried out a tree condition assessment survey on 16 July 2021. In its report of 26 July 2021 it details a number of works to different trees contained within the estate where the resident’s property is situated. This includes pruning, removal of deadwood, or replacing dead trees with new trees. It concluded “no trees within the site require urgent remedial action at this time”.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 July 2021 as she advised that she had not received a stage two response from her landlord. She referred the complaint raised to her landlord and that she had been advised on 24 May 2021 by her landlord that her complaint had been escalated to stage two.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 13 August 2021 to chase up its stage two response.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 August 2021 following a phone call that it had made the same day, enclosing a copy of its stage two response of 15 July 2021 and the formal offer of compensation, together with a form for the resident to confirm acceptance of the compensation.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 September 2021 regarding the landlord’s compensation offer. She asked whether the landlord would provide “an annual schedule” for residents “detailing dates of window cleaning and grounds maintenance”. She stated that her “external windows and balcony were not cleaned this year”. She felt that it was “reasonable for paying residents to know in advance for notice and privacy a cleaning and maintenance schedule”. She stated that one of her neighbours was “compensated for her windows not being cleaned and yet on the same day, when I had previously reported that mine weren’t, MTVH are refusing to accept this”. She wished to “clarify that any acceptance of compensation does not pertain to any future complaints or appeals against service charge increases or costs for balcony material replacements”.
The landlord responded to this email on 7 September 2021. It was unable to supply a schedule “as this could change depending on weather, other jobs etc”. A request had been made to the “estates team” to confirm this, or if the assumption was “wrong, supply a schedule for window cleaning”. With reference to the compensation, it stated that “this is more aimed at the lack of information you have received throughout your complaint than a reimbursement of service charge”. It advised that the resident was “within your right to dispute service charge at the end of every financial year should you think a miscalculation has been made or to dispute any rise/reduction of costs”. It advised that “accepting compensation does not take away this right, rather for the poor service you received”.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email of 7 September 2021 on the same day to accept the compensation offer of £175. She completed the landlord’s compensation acceptance form which stated that “please note that if compensation is accepted, this is in full and final settlement of your claim against Metropolitan, and we will consider the matter to be closed”. The resident referred to the window cleaning schedule and tree pruning. She advised that she had “not had my windows cleaned this year and MTVH have failed to accept or acknowledge this”. She felt that the request for a window cleaning schedule was reasonable as residents “pay for the service”.
The resident contacted this Service on 21 September 2021 to advise that she had not received the landlord’s compensatory offer despite following this up with her landlord. This Service therefore wrote to the landlord on 6 October 2021 to request an update on the payment of compensation. The resident emailed this Service on 1 October 2021 to confirm that the compensation issue had been resolved.
The landlord provided its service charge statement and demand on 27 September 2021 being the reconciled charge for the period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. This certificate detailed the expenditure for “block services” including “internal cleaning, gardening and grounds maintenance”. It detailed the management fee and building insurance costs. A cost breakdown for the block containing the resident’s property was provided. The total expenditure for the resident’s share of the costs amounted to £575.30. The “estimated service charge for the period” of £126.12 was subtracted leaving a debit balance of £449.18 that the resident was required to pay. The credit balance of £226.87 from the 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020 statement dated 7 July 2021 was not applied to the statement of 27 September 2021. The covering letter advised that the resident could view the account online to “see if you need to make a payment”.
The resident raised a financial statement complaint on 3 October 2021 concerning the accuracy and depth of information in the financial statement. In the covering email she advised that she had queried the issues “at length for several days” with the landlord. On checking the resident’s account, she had been informed that her “service charges for 2020/2021 had been incorrect due to a technical error”. She states the landlord had informed her that this was an “employee inputting the incorrect figures into a computer”. She reiterated that she was also advised that she should be paying “an additional £75.88 per month this year but that I should also be concurrently be building up credit”. This was to cover the “imminent bill for the shortfall”. She again questioned the reasonableness of this. The complaint detailed:
1. A reference to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and advised that the landlord is “required to make only reasonable increases to rent and service charges”.
2. As the letter was “generic” it is “far from clear as to my own position as to whether I am in arrears or not”.
3. She assumed that the “service charge statement for the financial year 2020/21” dated 27 September 2021 “is a statement of the actual costs for that year as opposed to the estimated service charge notice dated 13 February 2020”.
4. She felt the statement “does nothing to clarify the situation further as it does not show a breakdown of my payments for the year 2020/21” and “what the balance outstanding is, i.e. whether there has been any under or over payment”.
5. She advised that the statement did not “include total expenditure costs and block expenditure costs for auditor certification, management fee or building insurance”.
6. She requested the estimated service charge notice for the “nine months of the financial year to March 2020”, along with estimated service charge notices and statements for the financial years 2020/21, 2021/22. She requested a “revised service charge statement July 2019 – March 2021, showing the adjustment of actual costs, following your investigations of your mischarging errors, showing how the figures for the revised calculations, how much I have paid against these amounts for the time of my residence, and what the outstanding or credit balance amount is”.
7. She reiterated her complaint of 6 May 2021 regarding the “inflated and extortionate cleaning costs”. She requested an answer as to “when did it last go out to tender”. She had been made aware that “a new contract was due for revision this year”.
The landlord’s window cleaning schedule detailed that the external windows were due for cleaning between 6 to 7 October 2021. The landlord’s window cleaning contractor conducted a window cleaning audit on 7 October 2021. In this it detailed that the “external windows cleaned to required standard”. It provided a number of photographs within the document documenting the cleaning. It further stated that “all areas” were able to be cleaned.
The landlord emailed this Service on 7 October 2021 to advise that the compensation payment offered in its stage two complaint response had been processed. This was two months after the award of compensation had been made.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 November 2021. She advised that there were unresolved issues from her formal complaint of 6 May 2021 including an “unexplained increase in service charge by £80 per month”, “external cleaning costs – windows and balcony” that she states were not cleaned in April 2021 but still charged. She advised that her windows were “not cleaned by window cleaners in October 2021 yet still charged”. She stated that the landlord had refused to provide “prior cleaning schedules” and it had refused to “reimburse me the annual fee for window cleaning”. She advised that the landlord had “failed to provide financial statements for the last three years and yet continue to increase our service charge”. She advised that the landlord had “ignored” her request for the statements and for “detailed service charge expenditure records”.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 21 January 2022. She was unhappy that the landlord had not resolved issues that she had raised in her complaints and had closed her case whilst “the outstanding issue” was “not resolved. She detailed the key elements of the outstanding queries concerning:
1. An explanation to query the service charge increase by £80 per month (breakdown/statements).
2. The fact that the windows and balcony had not been cleaned in April 2021 and yet still charged for.
3. She wished as an outcome to be reimbursed for the annual internal cleaning costs of £147.11 being the amount charged in 2021/22 less the average cost of £15.25 per year (in light of previous years) and a respective reduction in cleaning costs for 2022 to 2023. She wished for a reimbursement of half of the external cleaning costs of £39.00 for the year for a missed service in April 2021 and for compensation for the poor handling of the complaint and the premature closing of the case and ceasing of communication by the landlord.
The landlord’s internal email of 28 January 2022 concerning the resident’s complaint advised that “the resident’s windows are cleaned four times per year, using a pure water reach and wash system”. This was due to the “design and height of the buildings” being “the only viable solution we have for window cleaning which provides realistic value for money”. It advised of “limitations with the system as it can be difficult to sustain pressure with the angles the teams work at which means we can’t guarantee to remove every mark”.
Following the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the landlord sent its response to the resident’s financial statement complaint on 31 January 2022, which was 82 working days after the resident sent her financial statement complaint. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the late response.
2. That as per the communication there had been a “technical error in the process of producing the interim service charge for the period 2020/21”.
3. On “11 September 2020 your account received a credit end of year balancing charge 2019/20 of £162.97”. It described this as the “original balancing charge applied in line with the original service charge financial statement 2019/20”.
4. On “23 August 2021 your account received revised end of year balancing charge 2019/20 of £226.87 credit”. “On 26 August 2021 your account had the original end of year balancing charge 2019/20 removed”. It advised that as the “revised end of year balancing charge 2019/20 value was a higher credit than its counterpart”. The removal was to “prevent putting you into a prejudiced position financially as a result of the review”
5. On “1 October 2021 your account received a debit end of year balancing charge 2020/21 of £449.18, in line with the service charge financial statement 2020/21 published simultaneously”.
6. It had checked the resident’s account and could see the monthly “interim charge for the period 2020/21 was £418.52, £42.90 lower than your monthly interim charge for the period 2019/20 of £461.42”. It reiterated this was due to a “technical error which occurred in our system while producing your interim charge for period 2020/21”. Its letter of 7 July 2021 detailed that the monthly interim charge for 2021/22 “has bounced back to a level of £490.48”. It advised that if the “technical error” had not occurred the “monthly interim charge 2020/21 would fall around the value of £475 and as a result your account would have likely received a low credit end of year balancing charge instead of a relatively high debit of £449.18.
7. It advised that the resident “may have experienced financial hardship in making payment towards the year end balancing charge 2020/21”. It had directed the resident to its letter of 7 July 2021 to contact its income team for “assistance”.
8. Its 2021/22 interim charges notification had been published on 22 February 2021. Its scheme’s “variable service charge review notification was published on 7 July 2021”. The interim charge was “based on unsupported estimates to 31 March 2021”. It was a “standard process” for estimating charges for a new build scheme “where no expenses are yet available”. When any “service delivery agreements MTVH hold with developer come to an end, MTVH begin to administer all services and all costs become recharged to the residents”.
9. It advised that the cleaning services, including grounds maintenance and garden was due to be reviewed. It advised that the resident could get involved, along with other “residents/residents’ association”.
10. It advised that the “estate coordination services were the only services affected due to lockdown which we have already accounted for”. It had “reduced the cost under service charge financial statements for the period 2019/20 and 2020/21”.
11. It advised that the letter of 27 September 2021 was a “legal document and it was issued in compliance with statutory requirements” It “follows the statutory format and should be read in conjunction with corresponding notification of interim charges”.
12. It offered to provide “further advice as to the way variable service charge is accounted and managed”. It offered a “phone conversation to provide advice in areas which require further elaboration”.
The resident responded to the landlord by email on 1 February 2022 further disputing the service charges and advised that “I was never officially informed by letter” concerning the “human error of incorrect data entry”. She advised she was “never provided with a clear explanation of the error or with a sum of what should have been charged in 2020/21 or a financial statement of this”. She questioned the reason the landlord removed the £162.97 credit from her account.
The landlord emailed back in response to state that “over the period 2020 and 2021 we completed a thorough review of scheme’s charges. This resulted in a number of issues we identified which we communicated in detail in the letter dated 7 July 2021 we sent to all residents affected, you were one of them”. It advised that the “issues were corrected by the end of the month August 2021”. It explained that the “notifications comply with statutory requirements”. It provided an “itemised breakdown in support your financial statement 2020/21”. It offered again to have a phone conversation to “ensure understanding as to variable service charge accounting processes and the impact of the charges review your account was affected by”. It apologised for “any inconvenience which may have been caused by the review of charges you have been affected by”.
The landlord emailed internally on 4 February 2022. In this it stated that “we have exhausted all available alley ways to address the points that the resident has raised. With every response that we have received from her in response to our communications the text gets longer”. It advised that on “numerous occasion we offered to hold a phone conversation to clarify all points but seems that she is not accepting it”.
The landlord issued a “stage one final response” letter on 4 February 2022 in response to a further complaint from the resident of “21 January 2022”. In this it stated that “we have received confirmation that your complaint has gone to the Ombudsman, and they are currently investigating the matter. As such I am unable to keep your complaint open and it will have to be withdrawn”. This complaint has not been seen by this Service.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s delivery of communal services including window cleaning and grounds maintenance services charged for through service charges.

This investigation has considered the resident’s reports concerning the window cleaning and internal cleaning, along with her reports related to grounds maintenance. The main issue considered regarding the grounds maintenance aspect is the issue of tree pruning reported in resident’s stage one complaint of 6 May 2021.
The resident referred to the window cleaning in her complaint of 6 May 2021, in relation to the frequency and quality of the work undertaken which she believed was twice yearly. However, in the landlord’s response of 20 May 2021, it advised the resident that the window cleaning happens on a quarterly basis with the last window cleaning being undertaken in April 2021. It is not clear what information was provided by the landlord at the start of the resident’s lease as she was unaware of the frequency of the service being provided and paid for through service charges. This indicates that there were communication issues from the landlord to the resident on the service standards that were to be expected.
The resident had reported that no window cleaning had taken place for her property in April 2021. This is contrary to the landlord’s records that detail the dates when the windows were due to be cleaned in April 2021. However, there is no evidence that the window cleaning scheduled for April 2021 was completed. The landlord provided this Service with a sample of records of inspections for grounds maintenance and cleaning from 2021 detailed above, however this does not provide assurance as the landlord did not consistently sign these off. Therefore there is no evidence that the landlord carries out the joint inspections to the frequency outlined within it service specification. The landlord’s record keeping was therefore insufficiently robust. It is important that the landlord keeps accurate and robust records so that it is aware of the standards of services provided to residents, along with the condition of its estates and properties. It can then provide accurate information to residents and demonstrate that it has met its service standards.
The resident referred to clause 4.20 in her lease agreement. The particular clause is from the superior lease which states that “the lessee must clean the inside of all windows and window frames in the flat at least once every month”. As mentioned above, the landlord has advised this Service that the communal cleaning takes place on a weekly basis, though there is insufficient evidence to confirm the actual frequency is weekly. However, this Service has not seen records that this standard has been achieved. The resident’s underlease contains the obligation for the resident to clean the inside of her specific property.
The resident requested an annual schedule to be provided “detailing dates of window cleaning and grounds maintenance”. She advised that her external windows had not been cleaned that year. Her comment that “it is reasonable for paying residents to know in advance for notice and privacy a cleaning and maintenance schedule” was not an unreasonable request. However, no record has been seen that the landlord provided this schedule to the resident. It gave mixed messages in its email of 7 September 2021 to the resident regarding the provision of a schedule and that it would need “confirm this, or if I’m wrong, supply a schedule for window cleaning”. This will have raised the resident’s expectations concerning the schedule. However, the landlord did not get back to the resident, and evidence has not been seen that it contacted the estates team about the schedule. The gives further evidence of communication issues both internally and externally.
The landlord’s window cleaning contractor carried out its own quality and safety audit on 7 October 2021 which advised that all of the areas had been cleaned. No reason has been provided as to why the cleaning contractor was allowed to audit its own works without the satisfactory oversight of the landlord or superior landlord to ensure the integrity of the audit. The communication between the landlord, superior landlord and the managing agent was lacking.
In the landlord’s response of 31 January 2022 its approach to put things right in light of the resident’s complaint was to give the resident the opportunity to get involved in the review of the cleaning services that was due to take place, along with the grounds maintenance and gardening. This was an appropriate step to take to allow the resident to contribute to the review to assist in the provision and monitoring of future services.
In respect of the tree pruning the landlord considerably delayed the resolution of the issue raised by the resident in January 2020. The estates contracts officer had only been informed about the tree in June 2020. It was reported back that no work was required as the “trees were not impacting on the building at the time”. It was unreasonable that it took five months to arrange an inspection of the tree (especially as pruning should be done before the summer months generally), and then for the landlord not to get back to the resident, who was evidently concerned about the growth of the tree. The landlord clearly failed to pass on this information to the resident at this time and she was only advised of the outcome in the landlord’s complaint letter of 20 May 2021, a year and a half after her report and only provided after she made a formal complaint. The landlord further advised that it had asked its contractor to “provide a quote for a crown reduction (to reduce the overall size of the tree) if required” and that this would be “actioned”. There is no evidence that this was “actioned”. There was an element of doubt as to whether any action would be taken by use of the phrase “if required” and the landlord did not provide subsequent clarification. The landlord’s lack of response was a clear service failure and it also highlighted internal and external communication issues.
It was appropriate, however, for the landlord to engage with an arboriculture consultancy who had inspected all of the trees in the estate where the resident’s property was situated on 16 July 2021. This would assist the landlord in monitoring the condition of trees and the degree to whether there were any health and safety considerations. The annual inspection regime would be a useful tool for the landlord to monitor any health and safety issues arising from the trees.
In summary, the landlord’s record keeping was insufficiently robust to provide accurate information to the resident concerning window cleaning and when this had occurred for her specific property. It did not always sign off the inspections that had taken place for cleaning and grounds maintenance so as to ensure adequate oversight of its contractor. The landlord did not provide sufficient evidence to the resident that her windows were cleaned in April 2021, and the audit carried out by the window cleaning contractor, whilst stating that all areas had been cleaned, meant that the landlord was relying on the contractor’s word, rather than providing full oversight. The landlord failed to update the resident on her report regarding the tree and her health and safety concerns for a year and a half. This meant that the resident had to raise the issue in her complaint and there was no evidence that the promised quote was provided for “crown reduction” or that the landlord had actioned this in any way. These issues show that there was a service failure by the landlord for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries concerning her service charges and the level of the charges.

The landlord’s records indicate that the resident initially raised queries regarding her service charges on 27 April 2021 prior to her formal complaint. The landlord responded the same day and in response to a further query raised by the resident on 28 April 2021. It asked another officer to respond to the resident’s further query regarding the use of “generic headings”. The landlord did not respond to this further query until 10 May 2021, a small delay from the query being raised.
The evidence of the “extensive communication” referred to in the landlord’s email of 12 May 2021 has not been seen by this Service. It is not clear from the landlord’s records whether phone calls or further emails may have been made that addressed “all the points” the resident raised in her complaint prior to 27 April 2021.
The statement from 22 February 2021 showing the estimated charges for rent and service charges that would apply from 1 April 2021 contained a typographic error as mentioned above. However, no records have been seen that the landlord sent a further letter to correct this and to clarify that the period to which charges would apply was from 1 April 2021. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to correct this error to avoid confusion for the resident.
The landlord had referred to the impending debit balance for the period 2020/21 in its 12 May 2021 email, which was also raised by the resident in her complaint of 6 May 2021. It is not known, whether this message was communicated by phone or email. No records have been seen of any further attempts of the landlord to communicate with the resident regarding the forthcoming debit or to answer the resident’s service charge queries. It is important for landlords to keep accurate records so that it can provide its residents with accurate information and can fully answer the queries raised. This Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents (March 2022) states that “landlords should ensure their processes for responding to service issues, particularly involving multiple parties, include the development and use of clear action plans, and that performance against these plans is effectively monitored”. This gives a number of recommendations that the landlord should review to consider improvements that can be made to its own practices. Accurate records enable the landlord to have effective oversight of its properties and services. This Service’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) highlights that “if information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on”. This can refer to “a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information” as has been seen in this investigation. It gives a number of recommendations and the landlord should review this report and determine what improvements can be made to its own record keeping practices.
The landlord did offer some explanation of the increase to the service charge in respect of cleaning in its stage one response of 20 May 2021 regarding a possible increased specification to the cleaning contract that was due to follow a wider procurement exercise excluding the block containing the resident’s property. The landlord could have advised at this point that any changes to service specifications may be subject to a Section 20 consultation as required by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 if the relevant thresholds were met as referred to above. This would have then provided assurance that the resident would have been consulted on any changes to the service and it could have offered the opportunity to become involved in the procurement process at this point rather than in its later financial statement complaint response of 31 January 2022.
The landlord’s offer of a phone call or video call to further explain the queries she raised was a reasonable attempt by the landlord to offer further clarification. However, the resident sought a written response. There was clearly confusion for the resident in the receipt of the estimates and the statements that were sent by the landlord. The landlord also issued more than one year’s statements on 7 July 2021 which could have caused further confusion for the resident. No records have been seen that the landlord specifically referred to the resident’s account being in “arrears” in July 2021, but clearly the statement and demand dated 7 July 2021 for the year 2019/20 showed a credit balance on reconciliation of the various services provided under the lease and the landlord’s superior lease. It was not until the landlord sent its statement and demand on 27 September 2021 that the debit balance was revealed of £449.18. However, the credit balance of £226.87 was not subtracted from the amount owed, nor mentioned in any covering letter to explain that the credit balance was to be subtracted from the amount owed as detailed above. The covering letter simply advised that the resident could view the account online to “see if you need to make a payment”. This information did nothing to clarify the resident’s position as to whether she owed money or not.
The landlord’s stage two response advised that the resident’s service charge queries were “being dealt with directly by our service charges team who will respond to you directly”. This would have built up the resident’s expectation of a further response that would directly address the service charge issues that she had raised. However, no record has been seen that a further response was sent until after the resident’s later financial statement complaint of 3 October 2021 which was answered on 31 January 2022, nearly four months later. The landlord missed the opportunity to effectively handle the resident’s queries regarding her service charges earlier leaving her no recourse but to raise the later service charge statement complaint. This was a service failing of the landlord as it did not respond in a timely manner.
The landlord advised the resident in its financial statement complaint response of 31 January 2022 that estimates and financial statements “follows the statutory format and should be read in conjunction with corresponding notification of interim charges”. However, these are complex documents and it would be reasonable for the landlord to provide additional guidance to residents in understanding their annual statements that could be sent along with the statement. A recommendation from this Service’s Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling suggests providing a “comprehensive narrative with the invoice explaining the charges and calculation methods, accurately reflecting the charges being made to provide greater transparency”. It further states that “information to residents should be easy to read, jargon-free and available in appropriate languages and formats to ensure accessibility for all residents”. The information provided in the landlord’s response of 31 January 2022 is complex and it did nothing to allay the resident’s concerns and if anything raised further questions rather than answer them. For example, the resident’s question as to why credit had been removed from her account.
In its responses to the resident that have been seen, it is clear that there was additional confusion for the resident regarding the “technical error”. Given that the landlord confirmed that it had made this “error” it would be expected that an apology would be given for this, but an apology has not been seen for this in the financial statement complaint response of 31 January 2022. The result from this “error” was that the resident had been charged less than she should have been for a whole year, and as a result a debit balance had accrued on her account. This would have been a shock for the resident to learn that she was in debit or “arrears”. Whilst the resident was obliged to pay the service charges in accordance with her lease, the news that she was now owing this amount of money on top of the rent and service charges that she was already paying would have caused distress and inconvenience to her.
In summary the landlord’s “extensive communication” with the resident concerning her service charges has not been evident indicating issues with its communication and record keeping practices. It failed to address the resident’s service charge queries at an earlier point and raised the expectation of a separate response in its stage two complaint response of 15 July 2021. This did not materialise and the resident was then inconvenienced, taking further time and effort to raise a separate complaint concerning her service charges. It then delayed the response concerning her service charges for nearly four months. Whilst offering a telephone or video call, the resident had requested a written response. However, the written response of 31 January 2022 was confusing and written in a technical manner which then raised further questions from the resident. Its service charge statement and demand of 27 September 2021 did not indicate that it had applied the credit that would then have reduced the amount outstanding. There was no further clarification that the credit still existed and could be used for this purpose. These issues amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 7 May 2021 and the landlord acknowledge this within its policy timescales. The landlord’s stage one response was also sent within its complaint policy timescale of ten working days on 20 May 2021.
The resident’s escalation request was sent on 20 May 2021 and acknowledged on 21 May 2021 in line with the landlord’s policy. However, the stage two response was sent outside of the landlord’s policy timescale on 15 July 2021, 39 working days later. It was also later than 18 June 2021, the date it advised the resident to expect its response with no holding response being sent to make the resident aware that the response would be delayed.
The landlord’s complaints policy excludes disputes regarding rent or service charges or their reasonableness. There is a separate process for service charge disputes. As the stage two response did not answer the resident’s queries or give any timescale as to when she could expect a separate response which would have been reasonable, the resident had to raise her additional service charge statement complaint on 3 October 2021 as mentioned. This caused unnecessary time and trouble in the resident’s pursuit of the landlord’s response to her queries.
Whilst it may be appropriate to have a policy and a process covering service charge disputes and in particular, the level of service charges, no policy or timescales for responses have been seen by this Service. The landlord’s complaints policy should deal with its handling of service charges and communication with residents rather than simply excluding all aspects of service charges from its policy. It should have a policy containing its timescales to respond to service charge complaints.
There was an unreasonable delay of nearly five months in responding to the resident’s separate financial statement complaint. The response was unnecessarily complex and the resident requested copies of the previous estimates and statements. Records have not been seen that the landlord provided copies of all of these with its response even though this was likely to have assisted in answering the resident’s queries.
The landlord then delayed payment of its compensation offered at stage two of £175. The resident again had to contact this Service before the landlord paid the compensation which was two months later. This was an unreasonable delay. The resident was also under the impression that the landlord would progress the outstanding matters of her complaint and was distressed that the landlord closed her case. The compensation form that referred to the matter being “closed” on acceptance of compensation can lead to outstanding issues remaining unresolved as was the case for the resident. The resident had clearly felt that the landlord had misled her on this point and the landlord’s response to this query on 7 September 2021 did not specifically say that the resident’s complaint would be closed. Terms such as ‘full and final settlement’ may be appropriate in legal settings but may unfairly deter residents from raising further queries and complaints.
In summary, whilst the landlord responded within its timeframe to the resident’s stage one complaint, its stage two complaint was delayed. It failed to answer all the points of the resident’s complaint effectively, and with regard to the service charge elements did not provide any timeframe by which the resident could expect a response. This meant the resident was faced with additional time and trouble in pursuit of the service charge elements of her complaint. It unreasonably delayed the payment of the compensation offered at stage two causing further time and trouble in the resident having to contact this Service to chase up the payment. There was further unreasonable delay once the resident submitted her financial statement complaint on 3 October 2021 with a response not being made by the landlord until 31 January 2022, nearly four months later. These issues combined amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s delivery of communal services including window cleaning and grounds maintenance services charged for through service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries concerning her service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

The landlord’s communication and record keeping was insufficiently robust in evidencing its oversight and monitoring of its cleaning and grounds maintenance contractor in line with its service specification. It was therefore unable to provide complete certainty that the resident’s windows had in fact been cleaned in April 2021. It failed to communicate internally with regard to the tree pruning issue that the resident had previously raised in January 2020. A year and a half later the landlord had committed to seeking a quote for the ”crown reduction” “if required” which provided little certainty to the resident that anything would happen. No record has been seen of any update or action taken on this issue.
The landlord’s communication and record keeping evidencing its “extensive communication” was insufficiently robust with regard to its handling of the resident’s service charge queries. It failed to answer the resident’s concerns in a jargon free response and provide guidance on how the debit balance had been arrived at. It failed to apologise to the resident for the “technical error” and provide a sufficiently clear explanation of this. It failed to provide a further response to the resident’s service charge queries as promised in its stage two response of 15 July 2021, which meant that the resident had to submit her separate financial statement complaint on 3 October 2021. Its subsequent response failed to clearly address the issues raised by the resident leading to further queries.
The landlord delayed its response at stage two of its complaints process. It failed to provide a timeframe by which the resident could expect a response in connection with her service charge queries. It unreasonably delayed the payment of compensation that it had offered at stage two of its complaints process and this Service causing additional time and trouble for the resident in chasing this up with the landlord by contacting this Service. It unreasonably delayed a response to the resident’s financial statement complaint of 3 October 2021 and did not issue a response until nearly four months’ later.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident from a Director level or above for the failings outlined in this report.
2. Pay the resident £150 in respect of the landlord’s delivery of communal services including window cleaning and grounds maintenance services charged for through service charges.
3. Pay the resident £500 in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries concerning her service charges.
4. £700 compensation in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord must secure a quotation for the possible “crown reduction” of the tree referred to in the resident’s complaint if it has not already done so. The landlord must confirm the details of this quotation and planned actions thereafter to this Service.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, if it has not already done so, the landlord must provide the resident with her service charge estimates and statements covering the time period requested by the resident. It must provide a clear narrative of the charges, balances and credits that have been applied to the resident’s account, along with the current balance.
Within twelve weeks from the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identify learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s Board and Resident’s Panel outlining at minimum:
1. The learning points identified from this case and what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures to ensure the inclusion of service charge complaints. This should set out a clear timescale for actions, overall case management and oversight by named postholders and a monitoring process.
2. The intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 2 – Accessibility and Awareness, Section 4 – Complaint Handling Principles and Section 5 – Complaint Stages with reference to timescales and the additional stage for service charge complaints. It should use this to then review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
3. The intentions and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment of its approach to service charges using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on leasehold, shared ownership and new builds: complexity and complaint handling (available on our website). It should use this to review its policy regarding service charges administration and handling.
4. The intentions and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment of its approach to private freeholders and managing agents using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Landlord’s engagement with private freeholders and managing agents (March 2022) available on our website. It should implement changes as a result of this self-assessment to its engagement and oversight of services.
5. The intentions and a timescale to undertake a self-assessment of its approach to knowledge and information management using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). It should implement changes as a result of this self-assessment to its record keeping practices.