Hexagon Housing Association Limited (202210842)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210842

Hexagon Housing Association Limited

26 February 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of requests for service charges information, including the level of service provided.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of a 1 bedroom flat in a 4 storey building. His lease began in 2014.
The landlord’s service charges policy says it aims to be open and honest about the types of services it charges for, the way it calculates charges, charges for services, how it allocates costs across multiple properties, and what information it gives to residents. It states it will aim to resolve any issues customers have promptly and openly. It says it aims to achieve value for money and ensure that customers are clear about what the charges are for.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to be fair, easy to reach, and be helpful at all times with a customer friendly process to be heard and understood. It aims to resolve resident’s problems as quickly as possible. It states that a resident does not have to use the word complaint for it to be treated as such. The landlord operates a two stage internal complaints process. It aims to provides responses at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. At both stages if it is unable to provide a response within the timescales, it will provide an explanation and a date not exceeding 10 days for its response.
The landlord’s handbook states it aims to provide a prompt and courteous service to residents. It states it will respond to correspondence by email within 10 working days or it will explain the reason for the delay, provide the name of the person dealing with the case, and provide a date it will provide a full response. It states that where a service for the residents’ home is not being provided, the weekly service charge would be reimbursed for each complete week it was not available. It states residents and their visitors must not park a vehicle on their property, except in defined parking areas.
The lease states in relation to service charges that the relevant expenditure to be included in the service provision shall comprise of all expenditure reasonably incurred or to be incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, maintenance, and provision of service for the building, any parking space, and the common parts of the building, estate. It also states that as soon as practicable after the end of each account year, the landlord shall determine and certify the amount by which the estimate shall have exceeded or fallen short of the actual expenditure in the account year. It shall supply the leaseholder with a copy of the certificate and the leaseholder shall be allowed or shall pay immediately following receipt of the certificate, the specified proportion of the excess or the deficiency.

Summary of events

The resident told the landlord on 9 May 2021 that he wanted to dispute some of the service descriptions he was paying for in his service charges. He advised it that he did not have a car parking space, so he was unsure why he was paying for the car park security. He also queried if the CCTV was working and advised he had previously questioned this and had no response.
The following day, the landlord informed the resident it had forwarded his message to the relevant team that dealt with service charges.
The landlord assured the resident on 20 December 2021 that he would have the matters he had raised investigated. It is unclear what prompted the landlord’s email to the resident. Two days later, the resident responded and said he hoped the matter could be resolved due to the length of time it had been outstanding.
The resident chased the landlord on 13 January 2022 and asked for an update as the matter had been ongoing for years. He said his service charge was incorrect yearly and he disputed it. He told it he would stop his direct debit due to the service charge being incorrect. The resident explained he had spent over a year trying to resolve the matter and had no luck or assistance. He said he had no choice but to go to the Ombudsman.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 March 2022 to dispute his service charge. He referred to his emails of 9 May 2021 and 20 December 2021 and said he had not received a response about the matter he had raised in them. He expressed disappointment that it had failed to grasp his concern. He highlighted he had also sent two follow up emails and received no response. He expressed dissatisfaction at the customer service provided to him. He reiterated that there was a problem with the service charge rates yearly. He raised queries about the 2022/2023 service charges he had received as he did not believe they were correct. He asked for the matter to be logged as a complaint and to be provided with a reference. He said the matter had been ongoing for years and he had repeatedly raised it. He told the landlord he wanted to challenge the service charge description and costs per block/estate.
The following day, the landlord apologised to the resident about not receiving a response in relation to the issues with the service charges. It said it had asked for the concerns to be investigated and he would receive a response within the next 10 working days. The resident responded on the same day, thanked the landlord for its response, but said he had been waiting almost a year for the service charges for 2021/2022 to be investigated. The resident told the landlord it had failed to address the issue and queried why it had not been investigated. He explained he had sent multiple emails and received no response. He now had to wait another 10 days which he did not believe was fair and correct. He said he was not prepared to wait any longer and wanted a resolution as soon as possible. He advised he had asked for the matter to be logged as a complaint as he wanted the matter passed to the Ombudsman.
The landlord told the resident on 11 March 2022 it was keen to resolve the issues and apologised for the inconvenience caused. It said it had attempted to contact him and left 2 voicemails on the same day. It asked for a convenient time for him to call it so that it could resolve the matters once and for all. It said it would try to call him again on 14 March 2022 as this would allow it to tackle his complaint and ensure he received a formal response. It also queried his telephone number after trying to reach him on an incorrect number. On the same day the resident responded and told the landlord he had been waiting for its phone call all day and had not been contacted. He said he also had not received a voicemail. He provided his contact details and said he had an email from a member of its staff and was awaiting the complaint process as he wanted to log his case with the Housing Ombudsman. He informed it that it had been trying to contact him on an incorrect telephone number.
Following its telephone conversation with the resident on 17 March 2022, the landlord followed up with an email. It explained they had discussed that the resident believed:
1. His service charges had been overcharged for the last 6/7 years.
2. The CCTV in the block did not work.
3. Cleaning had not been done.
4. He needed to know who his housing officer was.

The landlord said it had advised that it would need to read his lease agreement to check what he should be charged against what he was charged, once this was investigated, he would be updated.

The resident spoke to the landlord on 18 March 2022. He:
1. Explained he had been awaiting a response since June 2021 about the service charges for 2021/2022.
2. Said he believed this should be treated as a matter of urgency and then it could review the previous years.
3. Stated the new service charges were almost double for 2022/2023 and he did not believe this is correct.
4. Advised he had questioned about the CCTV almost 2 years ago and was told it was not working. He queried why he was paying for CCTV when it was not working.
5. Identified that cleaning was not being completed to the required standard and asked for the service level agreement for the cleaning to be provided, or for it to identify what was being cleaned and who was checking on the cleaning.
6. Said he did not believe the waste room had been cleaned since he moved into the building 7 years prior.
7. Raised issues with the responses from housing officers and stated the customer desk were also failing to respond to emails.
8. Asked for the matter to be logged as a complaint and for him to be provided with a complaint reference.
The resident chased the landlord for an update on 24 March 2022. It contacted him on 29 March 2022 and explained a meeting was held about the service charge amount for his property. It said he would be updated on 31 March 2022. On the same day, the resident thanked the landlord for its update and said he was looking forward to hearing from it.
On 1 April 2022 the resident provided the landlord with a handwritten complaint form. He stated his complaint was about service charges for the past two years and ongoing issues between 2020 to 2022. He emailed it again on the same day and reiterated he had previously emailed it with his concerns. He also chased a response to his service charge queries. The landlord responded and referred the resident to its response from 31 March 2022, but there was no mention of his complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the email of 31 March 2022. The resident told the landlord to consider his query had been ongoing for almost a year and he was starting to lose patience.
The resident requested an update from the landlord on 6 April 2022 and explained if a response was not provided, he would approach the Ombudsman. He then raised another complaint with the landlord on 12 April 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 April 2022 and asked if the issues he raised about rents and service charges had been resolved. It told him to advise if there was anything outstanding. The resident responded on 5 May 2022 and apologised for the delay in his response. He confirmed he had not actioned its request. He told it there was another meeting taking place the following day and he would see what the outcome was. The resident said it was really sad to know it had taken over a year to get matters resolved. He had logged complaints and spoken with many people and the matter remained unresolved.
Following the meeting, the landlord contacted the resident on 9 May 2022 and thanked him for informing it about the issues. It told him to let it know if he was happy with what was discussed and if the matter remained unresolved, he should advise it of this. It contacted him again on 11 May 2022 and asked if he was happy with what was proposed/ reviewed by it. It asked if there was anything outstanding. It is unclear what the landlord is referring to, as the Ombudsman has not been provided with the necessary information.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 June 2022 and explained there had been a meeting over the phone. He had not received anything since, and he had received no answers to his questions. He asked for advice on what was happening and said he had also requested a copy of the minutes of the discussion. The landlord discussed this internally the following day and asked for the matter to be resolved with a full response before it dealt with the actual service charge costs.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 June 2022 and advised the individual who was liaising with the various departments about his query had left the organisation. As a result, it would be following up where they left off and endeavoured to provide an update by 24 June 2022. It provided him with meeting notes. A copy of these have not been provided to the Ombudsman. On the same day, the resident responded, thanked the landlord, and asked it to advise on the car parking situation.
The landlord responded to the resident on 24 June 2022 and said following its previous email, it was awaiting information to provide a full response to the points he had raised. It is unclear if the landlord meant the points raised following his initial request in May 2021, their conversation on 17 March 2022 or that he had raised other points. It explained to him that it aimed to provide an update before 8 July 2022 due to leave. It told him the car parking issue was one it was awaiting clarification on.
The resident asked the landlord for an update on 17 August 2022. He explained they had a meeting in May 2022, and he was still awaiting answers 3 months later. He said if he did not get answers by the end of that week, he would have to write to its board to get answers. On the same day, the landlord responded and apologised for the delay in its response. It explained it had received feedback from the relevant departments and would be providing him with a response to each of the points he had raised the following day.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord informed the resident that a department want to confirm some details, as such it would be provided the response the following day instead.
The landlord responded to the resident on 19 August 2022 and thanked him for his patience. It explained it was able to provide him with an update on most area. It said:
1. With the fire alarms, the large costs related to the replacement of emergency lighting fittings. Batteries used had a standard life, after which they had to be replaced. It explained the costs were not to the level where the work could be capitalised and therefore it would not use the sinking fund to cover the costs.
2. Communal cleaning occurred once a week. Carpets were deep cleaned every 6 months. It had asked for a copy of the specification of the cleaning contract, and it would share it as soon as it had it.
3. Window cleaning occurred quarterly, and it was aware that some dates had been missed. It was looking thoroughly into it. Once it had finished the work it would pass any credits to all homeowners.
4. Communal water costs related to the servicing and maintenance of the boosted water pumps as well as the water tank inspections. This was a health and safety requirement.
5. The equipment servicing contract needed to be renamed as the meaning was unclear. It then provided him with his actual contributions to this. It explained there were repairs to communal areas and an inspection of the lightning protection system, the works were miscoded and should have been listed as fire alarms, door entry and lightening protection. It said it was reviewing its coding structure to help avoid miscoding of costs.
6. It was aware that half of the CCTV units were not working as they should. While it was waiting for these to be repaired, it would look to make an adjustment and refund.
7. Told him what the sinking fund was for and said the charges for the building for 20/21 actuals were considered to be day to day/ ad hoc repairs such as leaks or broken windows. To complete some of the repairs, it might have been necessary for the contractor to hire scaffolding which was where some of the high costs came from.
8. Its neighbourhood services team were still looking into his request to have a parking space and it would update him once it had received an update.
The resident responded to the landlord on 21 August 2022 and said his issues had remained unresolved for over two years. He explained it had been very stressful for him as he constantly had to chase to get answers which took up a lot of his time. He told it if the matter could not be resolved he would have no choice but to raise it with the residential property tribunal service. The resident then:
1. Advised that he was disappointed with the delay in response to a question and he had been chasing for answers following “team meetings” in April/May. He explained he did not agree with some of the points in its email. He explained there had been two meetings on 28 April 2022 and 6 May 2022 about the issues and he was disappointed to only be receiving a response to his queries on 19 August 2022. He expressed this was unacceptable and asked it to consider that the matter had been ongoing for 2 years and he had also raised a complaint.
2. Explained some of his concerns were regarding the service charge actual account for period 1 April 2020 to 31 March 2021. He said he could see large cost spend on the service charge letter that was sent out which was similar for most other years. He particularly wanted to draw attention to the costs for fire and other alarms and communal repairs.
3. Stated according to his lease/leaseholder handbook, the large cost for fire/ alarms and communal repairs should come out of the sinking fund. It had not used this and had instead pushed the final surplus into the current years’ service charge (2022/23), and his service charge monthly cost had increased dramatically.
4. Said when he had requested the breakdown of those costs in a meeting, he could see lots of things being put into the report. He advised he did not fully trust the breakdown and was concerned that for a lot of the costs, there were no descriptions of the work. This gave him the impression that the numbers were “made up” and to get transparent and correct information he would have to go to the residential property tribunal services to investigate the service charge and lease.
5. Raised issues with the window cleaning as he had not seen any window cleaning taking place in the last 8 years. He asked the landlord to provide evidence of the window cleaning taking place including evidence of cleaning his windows particularly.
6. Advised that the CCTV had not been working for the last 8 years but he was paying for CCTV costs on a monthly basis, and he had raised the question about this 3 years ago. The matter was still not resolved.
7. Highlighted he had been paying for carpark security and repairs but could not use it as he did not have a car park bay allocated to him. He had questioned this years ago and was told he should not have to pay for it. He was still waiting on an answer from it about how the carpark spaces were allocated in the building. He queried if he was allowed to use a car park space and said he wanted to be refunded for the payments he had made for the last 7 years without being allocated a space to use.
8. Asked for a credit for all 3 issues he had mentioned for a period of 8 years as he was not receiving the services. He also asked for full details of service charge breakdown of “actual account on year” so that he knew what was in detail. He asked for a quarterly update on spending costs as per his lease.
9. Provided feedback to the landlord’s earlier email and said he has never seen a deep clean happen, he was awaiting copy of the specification of the cleaning contract, window cleaning had not occurred since he had been at the building. He said the sinking fund was not managed properly as scaffolding had been up for about 3 years and no work was completed. He had been chasing an answer to the car parking issue since he moved in 2014, had not been provided with one and it did not seem to have any idea on this.
Following intervention from the Ombudsman, the landlord explained on 21 October 2022 that the resident’s complaint was not raised formally. It said it would contact him, raise a formal complaint and provide the Ombudsman with a complaint number.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 November 2022 and confirmed to him he had been overcharged service charges of £61 for ground maintenance and CCTV for years 2018/2019. It also told him that the CCTV had been replaced and it would arrange to show him the quality of the images it was receiving from the cameras.
The Ombudsman issued the landlord with a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 2 December 2022 following its failure to comply with requests to provide the resident with either a stage 1 or stage 2 final response. Following failure to comply with the CHFO, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and explained that it deemed it reasonable to investigate the resident’s complaint.
The landlord then provided a stage 1 complaint response on 3 February 2023. It apologised for the delay in its response and explained it was due to an internal issue with its complaints system. It thanked him for speaking with it on 2 occasions in October 2022 about the complaint. It explained what his complaint was about and the outcomes he sought. It then explained its findings:
1. After a review into the service charges, it had gone as far back as 2018/2019 tax year and found he had been over charged for both grounds’ maintenance and CCTV charges since 18/19. It said a letter was sent to the resident on 3 November 2022 confirming the error and that he would be receiving a refund of £61, to be credited to his rent account. It confirmed the CCTV was upgraded and a new grounds maintenance contract was being procured. It provided him with a copy for his records.
2. It advised that after discussing internally, as the building did not have “ASM” or similar cladding, there would be no requirement for an “ESW1 form” to be completed for any mortgage lender following the intrusive survey it was completing. It explained it had been attempting to secure a fire safety engineer to complete a review of the intrusive survey and provide feedback on the report to all resident, but this had been difficult. It did however continue to try and secure the services of a qualified fire safety engineer but could not provide any timescales.
3. It offered him compensation of £100 for the delay in its response and the inconvenience of having raised a stage 1 complaint to get the matter resolved.

Post response

Following the complaint response, the resident continued to chase an outcome on the service charges issue. He also raised issues about his new service charges for the 2023/2024 year on 29 March 2023. On the same day, he received a delivery report stating his email had not been delivered as the email address he had sent it too was no longer operational. He had however copied another member of the landlord’s staff into the email. He asked to raise a complaint on 14 April 2023 due to a lack of response to his email and chased a response on 21 May 2023.
The landlord apologised to the resident on 14 June 2023 for the delay in its response and explained the member of staff he raised his query with had left the organisation. It provided him with a letter for his rent and service charges for 2023/2024, his statement of account and his complaint response. It explained he had been overcharged by £61 between 2018 and 2020 and this had been credited to him in November 2022. It also explained that the service charge account for 2022/2023 was being reconciled and he would receive an actual service charge invoice in September 2023. This would provide him with a full breakdown with his actual service charges and any credit due would be calculated and applied.
The resident emailed the Ombudsman and landlord on 27 June 2023 and said he had never been provided the landlord’s stage 1 response to his complaint or the letter relating to the changes in his service charge for 2023/2024 dated 24 February 2023. He stated it was now too late to provide the information as he had sent multiple emails requesting the information and it did not provide it. He told the landlord the matter remained unresolved, and he wanted to escalate to stage 2 of its complaints process. He stated the issue had been ongoing for over 4 years and he was dissatisfied with the landlord. He highlighted he had raised further complaints and emailed it on 29 March, 14 April 21 May and 28 May to request a complaint reference number which it failed to do.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has explained he raised issues regarding his service charges as early as 2014. The length of time which has passed would make it difficult to obtain accurate records to carry out an investigation about issues going back this far. As such, this investigation has primarily focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2021 onwards.
The resident has also asked the Ombudsman to consider a refund of his service charges. The Ombudsman is unable to decide on such matters as a legally binding determination is required. Such issues are better dealt with by the courts. The resident might want to seek independent legal advice and consider referring the matter to the courts. The Ombudsman can however consider the resulting inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.
The Ombudsman determined that there was a complaint handling failure by the landlord, and this led to a CHFO being issued against it due to a failure to provide its response. The Ombudsman has explained that due to this it would investigate the matter. The landlord then subsequently provided its complaint response, however, it failed to consider all of the issues raised by the resident. Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not acted within a reasonable timescale. In this instance, the resident had expressed dissatisfaction at the service received around cleaning with the landlord in March 2022. It failed to address this matter in its complaint response in February 2023. The landlord had a reasonable amount of time to identify, consider and respond to this with a formal response following its update around the matter in August 2022. As such this will form part of the complaint considered in this report.
The resident has brought a second complaint to the Ombudsman about an EWS1 form. The landlord addressed both matters in its complaint response however, the issue of the EWS1 form is being dealt with under a different case reference. The matter will not be considered in this investigation and a separate determination will be issued by the investigating officer.

The landlord’s handling of requests for service charges information, including the level of service rendered.

Following the resident’s dispute about the service charge description in May 2021, the landlord has not demonstrated that it responded appropriately to his concerns. Although it informed him it had forwarded it to the relevant team, the evidence suggests no positive action was taken, as over 7 months later, it was still assuring him that the matters would be investigated. This was inappropriate, and not in keeping with its policy and handbook of providing a prompt service, as there was a substantial delay in dealing with the resident’s queries. This was unreasonable and a disproportionate length of time for the resident to have to wait without any information. This caused the resident frustration.
The resident explained that he chased the matter several times after raising his concerns. Although this is not disputed by the Ombudsman, the evidence provided shows that the first instance of him doing so was in January 2022, 8 months after he raised his initial request. The fact the resident had to chase for a response was unacceptable and shows the landlord did not take a customer focused approach to dealing with his query. It also does not align with its service charges policy of resolving issues promptly and openly. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to appropriately resolve the matter earlier.
The resident then disputed his service charges again in March 2022 and explained the matter remained outstanding. He referred to his emails in 2021 to the landlord. This was 10 months after his initial request. The fact that the resident was left chasing a response to his initial query after this length of time and the continued delay was unacceptable. This is especially so, given that he had indicated he wanted to raise a complaint about the matter and approach the Ombudsman. The continued failure to deal with his request would have added to the resident’s lack of confidence in the landlord. Its failure to act also led to a delay in the resident receiving a resolution to the issue.
Following the resident’s email in March 2022, he raised further issues around his service charges, this time for years 2022/2023. The landlord appropriately acknowledged his concerns for 2021/2022 had not been investigated and explained it had asked for them to be. The fact it had asked for his initial concerns to be investigated was unsatisfactory. The matter had been outstanding for a substantial amount of time. It should have been proactive in ensuring that the concerns were appropriately addressed in a timely manner, in line with its policies. If it could not do so, it should have provided the resident with regular updates and information on why it had not been addressed. The evidence provided does not demonstrate that it did these things and this was unsatisfactory. The landlord repeatedly asking internally for the matter to be resolved was not enough. It should have identified what was stopping his request being dealt with, explored any potential solutions, explained this to him and establish a clear timescale for a response. This would have meant the resident did not have to take the time to repeatedly request updates or for a resolution to the matter. It lacked sufficient oversight into the issue and did not appear to take ownership of the resident’s concerns. Its repeated failure to address the matter showed a failure to appropriately manage and maintain the landlord and resident relationship and this was unacceptable.
The evidence also suggests that the landlord failed to be proactive in telling the resident that its member of staff he was liaising with had left the organisation until he asked for an update in June 2022. This was inappropriate. It then informed him that it would be providing a full response to the points he raised, but no evidence has been provided to show that it did this within the timescales it provided him. This was unacceptable and would have added to resident’s lack of confidence and trust in the landlord.
The resident had to inform the landlord that it had failed to provide him with answers following their meeting 3 months prior. This then prompted the landlord to update the resident. The fact the resident had to prompt the landlord for the update and the subsequent delays were inappropriate. The level of delays in the landlord’s responses across the resident’s requests raises questions about its record keeping and communication.
From the evidence, the landlord provided the resident with a response 15 months after his initial request in 2021 and this was an unacceptable delay. It also failed to properly answer the resident’s query. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to explain when it became aware that some of the CCTV cameras were not operational. An answer was also not provided to the resident around the car parking issue and why he was paying service charges for a service he was not receiving, and this was unreasonable. Although it explained it was still investigating the car parking matter, this was unreasonable given the length of delay. It failed to inform him why there was such a delay in it being able to provide him with the relevant information. This would have added to the resident’s frustrations, as he advised he had been waiting for the information for a long time. The landlord has not shown it has provided the resident with all the information requested by the resident in relation to the service charges. An order has been made for the landlord to provide the required information.
The landlord has not demonstrated that it fully considered the failings involved in its handling of the resident’s requests. The landlord has not offered any compensation or redress around this issue. It has not shown that it has learned from the resident’s experience and this was unreasonable. A complaint provides a landlord with an opportunity to reflect on its failings and learn from them to ensure sure issues do not occur in the future. The Ombudsman has ordered that compensation is to be paid to the resident.
The resident raised issues about paying for a service he was not receiving from the landlord around car parking. From the evidence provided, the car parking arrangements are unclear. It is unclear if residents are allocated individual parking spaces, and as such pay towards this as part of their service charge, or if the payments relate to visitor parking for example. When the resident raised his concerns, the landlord should have been clear on arrangement of the car parking and why he was responsible for any service charges. It also should have explained what the service charges were for and the failure to do so shows that there were issues with its communication. It has provided no evidence of any guidance for example that it could have shown the resident to explain how it managed the car parking arrangements. Not having a clear procedure or defined practices does not demonstrate that it takes a fair and consistent approach in its management. This would leave residents confused and unsure about their rights and the landlord’s obligations around the matter.
The resident also raised queries about the service charge payment for CCTV cameras as he did not believe they were in working order. Although the landlord acknowledged that it had overcharged him, and that the CCTV had not always been working, it failed to provide him with the necessary detail on why he was still responsible for the service charge. For example, it should have provided him with a breakdown of when the cameras were not working, and when they were repaired for the years concerned. This would have given him a clear understanding about how the works completed, and the costs involved. The failure to do so led to frustration and added to his mistrust with invoice provided by the landlord.
The resident also raised concerns about the cleaning within the block and the windows. The landlord appropriately updated the resident that it would provide him with the service agreement with the cleaner once it received the document. It also reasonably told him it was reviewing the window cleaning as it was aware some appointments had been missed.
Despite this however, the landlord failed to provide any appropriate reassurance to the resident that the cleaning was taking place inline with any agreed service level agreements with its contractors. Although it provided him with details of when cleaning of the block, windows and deep cleaning of carpets were meant to take place, it failed to evidence that these had been completed to the resident. It should have provided him with proof, such as signed attendance logs by the cleaners for the building and the windows, or copies of inspections it had completed to show that the works were completed to an agreed standard. The failure to do so was inappropriate and added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord.
In summary, there were significant delays with the landlord providing the resident with answers to his requests on numerous occasions. He had to repeatedly request updates and was constantly informed by the landlord his concerns would be investigated. This shows that it was reactive to the resident, rather than being proactive to tackle and respond to the issues he had raised. It also demonstrates that it failed to take appropriate action in a timely manner. It should have managed the resident’s expectations if the matters were complicated, explained this to him and arranged contact frequency. Its failure to take proactive action to keep the resident informed raises questions about its record keeping, as it should have recorded his requests. It also raises questions about its communication as it should have been aware responses were required without the resident needing to chase. It failed to provide the necessary reassurances to the resident that the service charges he had raised queries about were properly administered and charged. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the service provided by the landlord in January 2022 as it failed to provide him with the information he requested. He also told it he had no choice but to approach the Ombudsman. The landlord did not show that it recognised this could have been an attempt to raise a complaint by the resident. It failed to act in line with its policy which states residents do not have to use the term complaint, for the matter to be regarded as one. It also failed to act on the resident’s clear expression of dissatisfaction which was unacceptable. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to contact the resident and clarify his intentions. The fact that he mentioned he wanted to approach the Ombudsman was a clear expression of dissatisfaction. The failure to recognise this caused the resident frustration.
On 9 March 2022, the resident raised dissatisfaction and told the landlord to raise a complaint. Although it responded to him and provided him with a 10 day timeframe for a response, there were issues with its communication. This was because it did not make it clear if it meant it would be responding to the complaint, providing a response to his queries, both within the 10 day deadline it set. This was unreasonable and caused the resident frustration. The landlord should ensure that its communication is clear to avoid confusion for residents.
The resident also told the landlord on 10 March 2022 that he had raised a complaint with it. No evidence has been provided that it ever acknowledged this complaint in any of its communications with him and this was unacceptable. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord and shows that it failed to take a customer focused approached. This would have also contributed to his lack of confidence in the landlord and was a missed opportunity to resolve the matter at an earlier point. Acknowledging the complaint would have allowed it to reassure him that it was aware of his dissatisfaction and was taking an interest in investigating what had gone wrong. His intent in raising a complaint was evident as he again informed it that he wanted to go to the Ombudsman.
The resident again asked for a complaint to be raised on 18 March 2022 and provided the landlord with a handwritten complaint form on 1 April 2022. He told it on 6 April 2022 that if he did not receive a response to his queries, he would approach the Ombudsman and raised another complaint on 12 April 2022. There is no evidence that these attempts to complain and expressions of dissatisfaction were acknowledged or responded to. This was unacceptable, raises questions about the landlord’s communication practices and record keeping. The failure to respond to his repeated expressions of dissatisfaction and complaint requests would have caused the resident frustration, distress and added to his lack of trust in the landlord. This shows that it was not customer focused in its approach and gave the impression it was not taking the resident’s concerns sufficiently seriously.
Despite the Ombudsman’s intervention in the matter, the landlord continued to fail to respond to the resident’s complaints. This led to a CHFO being issued to it which it failed to comply with. The failure to comply was unacceptable and added to the unnecessary delays in providing the resident with a response. This also led to frustration for the resident.
Although the landlord has provided an explanation for the delay in responding, the overall delays in providing the complaint response was unreasonable. From the Ombudsman’s initial request for a response to be provided to the resident there was a 5 month delay in its response, and this was unsatisfactory.
As the resident had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord on 13 January 2022 and identified his intention to approach the Ombudsman, the Service finds it reasonable to conclude that a complaint was raised at this time. This means that the landlord’s initial complaint response was due on 27 January 2022 as per the timescales within its policy for stage 1 responses. The landlord then did not provide its response until 3 February 2023. This means that there was a delay of over 1 year in the landlord providing its stage 1 response and this was unacceptable. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence that the resident was provided with the response on this date.
The resident informed the Ombudsman that he had never received the stage 1 response until the landlord’s email of 14 June 2023. This meant that there was a delay of over 16 months in the landlord providing the resident with a stage 1 response. This was unacceptable and caused the resident frustration with the landlord. This also raised questions about the landlord’s record keeping and communication.
The resident also asked the landlord on 27 June 2023 to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of its process. At the time of writing, the landlord has not provided any evidence that a stage 2 response was ever provided to the resident, and this is unacceptable.
The Ombudsman requested a copy of the email sent to the resident in February 2023 following the landlord’s complaint response. It informed the Ombudsman on 1 February 2024 that it could not provide a copy of the email as it could not locate it in its files. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds it likely that the resident was not provided with the complaint response until June 2023, and this was inappropriate and caused the resident frustration.
In its response, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for the delay in its response and the need for him to raise a complaint. Although it offered the resident redress, this was not proportionate to the failings identified with its complaint handling. The compensation offer also failed to take consideration of its failings around the resident’s initial requests which led to the complaint. An order has been made for additional compensation to be paid based on the failings identified within this report.
In summary, there were multiple instances of the resident either raising dissatisfaction with the service he had received from the landlord or asking for a complaint to be raised. The landlord failed to log, acknowledge, or respond to the complaints. In total there were 7 instances of him trying to raise a complaint, receiving no acknowledgement or response. Further, despite the Ombudsman’s intervention, it still failed to respond within a reasonable timeframe, and was issued with a CHFO which it failed to comply with. Additionally, there was also a significant delay in its response. It has also failed to demonstrate that it ever escalated and responded to the resident’s complaint. Based on this, the Ombudsman finds that there was severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

Within the other sections of the report, concerns with the landlord’s record keeping have been identified. The issues with its record keeping negatively impacted on the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s service provision to him, as it contributed to the delays. Based on the identified record keeping failings, the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping. An order has been made for the landlord to review the Ombudsman’s knowledge and information management spotlight report.

Review of Policy and procedures

The Ombudsman has found maladministration (including severe maladministration) following investigations into complaints raised with the landlord around its communication, record keeping and complaint handling. The relevant cases and findings are set out below:
1. 202215739 – we found maladministration with the landlord’s knowledge and information management;
2. 202201020 – we found maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling;
3. 202125894 – we found severe maladministration with the landlord’s communication about various repairs in the resident’s property, complaint handling and record keeping.
The Ombudsman has several complaints awaiting investigation where similar issues have been identified. We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme for the landlord to review its practice in relation to the failings identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. We have set out the scope of the review below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was:
1. Severe maladministration with landlord’s handling of requests for service charges information, including the level of service rendered.
2. Maladministration with the landlord’s record keeping.
3. Severe maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were significant delays with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests. Its actions were often reactive to the resident’s progress requests rather than proactive. It failed to manage his expectations and effectively communicate with him. When it did provide him with responses, these were continued assurances that it would investigate his concerns and it failed to do so within a reasonable time period. It also has not shown that it has provided the resident with all of the information he requested 2 years following his request.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction with its service provision. He asked for complaints to be raised on several occasions and the landlord failed to evidence that these were acknowledged, raised, or responded to. There was a significant delay in it responding to his complaint, and a further delay in providing the resident with the complaint response. Although it offered compensation, this did not account for the multiple failings identified with its complaint handling.
The landlord’s record keeping added to the delays in its communication with the resident around his requests for information. It also caused issues with its complaint handling as it was significantly delayed in logging multiple attempts by the resident to complaint and providing a response. When asked to demonstrate that it provided the resident with the stage 1 response on the date it provided the Ombudsman with the response, it was unable to do so. The resident also identified that he had not received the response until June 2023.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. A member of the landlord’s senior leadership team is to provide the resident with a letter of apology around the identified failings (information provision, record keeping, and complaint handling).
2. Pay the resident compensation in the sum of £2300 broken down as:
  1. £100 previously offered to the resident for its complaint handling failings if it has not already done so.
  2. £1000 for the identified failings in its handling of requests for service charges information, including the level of service rendered.
  3. £400 for the identified record keeping failings.
  4. £800 for the identified complaint handling failings.
3. Meet with the resident either in person or virtually, to understand what information he has requested and remains outstanding, particularly around the carparking issue, CCTV, cleaning services and any other information he has requested as part of his complaint. If any information requested by the resident remains outstanding the landlord is to ensure this is provided to him. If it is unable to provide the resident with the information, it must provide him with a full explanation about why it is unable to do so.
4. The landlord is to deliver training to all relevant staff on how to/ importance of recognising complaints and the appropriate procedures to handle them. The landlord is to provide details of the training programme and schedule.
5. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.
In accordance with paragraph 54 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, within 12 weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to consider the failings identified in this report and:
1. Complete a review at senior management level of Its practices in relation to communication and provision of information to residents. Identify if there is a systemic/cultural issue around delayed responses. The review must be completed at a senior leadership level and explore why the failings identified in this investigation occurred.
2. Review any cases concerning service charge information from the previous 6 months to identify if there is anything further it needs to do to provide any necessary redress.
3. Provide training to staff within the relevant service areas involved in this investigation on the importance of prompt investigations into service requests, communication, providing residents with updates on outstanding matters, managing expectations, accurate record keeping and the impact of these issues on its service provision.
4. If it has not done so already, self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management and consider implementing any useful changes identified with the report.
5. The reviews must be completed by an independent service area to the area involved, and the landlord must report the outcomes of the review and recommendations for service improvement to its governing body.
6. Provide evidence of compliance with these orders.