Moat Homes Limited (202123201)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123201

Moat Homes Limited

6 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s queries about cyclical works and a resulting service charge dispute;
2. Response to a subject access request;
3. Handling of the associated complaint.

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.
Paragraph 42(k) of the Scheme sets out that we may not consider complaints that, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly under the jurisdiction of another regulator or complaint-handling body.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s subject access request (SAR) is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Data Protection Act (2018) sets out the resident’s entitlement to see the information the landlord holds about her, without undue delay, and within one month of receiving a request.
Decisions regarding the landlord’s compliance with the Act fall under the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).
The resident is able to contact the ICO regarding her concerns that the information that was provided to her by the landlord in response to her SAR was incomplete and contained inaccurate data, and the length of time it took to supply it to her.
Whilst it is noted that the landlord did comment on the SAR in its complaint responses, further reference to this matter will not be made in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a shared owner of a one bedroom, first floor flat.
The Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code was introduced in July 2020. It specifies that expressions of dissatisfaction should be considered to be complaints, and that landlords should not use an informal stage prior to stage 1. It also requires landlords to provide details of what stage the complaint is at, and how to escalate it, in its stage 1 and 2 responses.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the timeframes for its two-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within five working days, and provide a response within 10 working days of receipt of the complaint. If the complaint is escalated to stage 2, the manager assigned the case will contact the resident within three working days, and then provide a response within 20 working days of the request. If extensions are required and then agreed with the resident, this should not normally be longer than 10 working days.
The resident’s shared ownership lease sets out her obligation to pay the service charge, which includes expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord in connection with the repair, management, and maintenance of the building.
The lease mentions that Sections 18 to 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) apply to the recovery of costs through the service charge. The Act sets out the processes by which the landlord must first consult about, and then administer, service charges, as well as the responsibility of the resident to pay legitimate costs.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show it sent a letter to the resident on 23 January 2018, notifying her of its intention to engage a contractor to carry out cyclical works at her block, which would be paid for through her service charge. It supplied a list of contractors it proposed to consider tenders from. It gave the resident 30 days to submit any observations, and advised it would then carry out a tender exercise which could take up to six months. The resident has no recollection of receiving this notice.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 December 2018, setting out its plans to proceed with the cyclical works at her block. It included a section 20 notice which gave the resident until 11 January 2019 to respond to its consultation, and confirmed the works that would be undertaken:
1. Internal and external redecorations;
2. Any associated repairs or maintenance as required, for example window repairs, roof and rainwater repairs, wall repairs, fencing, flooring, external groundworks and walling;
3. Asbestos surveys and removals where required.
It advised that the costs of the work would be recovered from the residents through their service charge, and estimated the total cost per household to be £1,096.11, broken down as follows:
1. £704.69 for the cyclical decoration works;
2. £7.25 for an asbestos survey;
3. £100 for asbestos removal;
4. £162.39 for VAT;
5. £121.79 for the landlord’s management fee.
The landlord’s records indicate its contractor tried to gain access to the resident’s flat on 26 and 28 April, 1 May and 31 May 2019, and that it left cards when there was no answer at the door on each occasion.
The landlord’s records indicate it signed off the internal works as completed satisfactorily on 30 April 2019, and the external work on 4 July 2019.
On 28 February 2020 the landlord sent the resident a letter which chased payment of the associated service charge. It described the amount as “overdue”, signposted the resident to “help and advice” if she needed any, and asked the resident to let it know if she needed to set up a repayment plan. It also advised it would “obtain a County Court Judgement [CCJ]… in the Small Claims Court” if it did not hear from the resident in the next seven days.
On 5 March 2020 the landlord wrote again to the resident and apologised for having sent a “reminder to pay” letter without sending an “initial letter” to notify her of the final costs of the works. It advised it would treat the reminder to pay letter as its notification of the final costs, and enclosed an invoice with details of how to pay the charge.
The landlord’s records indicate the invoice covered the following internal and external works, to be split between six flats:
1. Fire upgrade coating to the plaster walls and soffit;
2. Redecoration of painted skirting boards;
3. Rub down, prime and repaint previously painted entrance door;
4. Rub down, prime and repaint metal balustrades and brackets;
5. Access platform hire;
6. Cleaning UPVC windows and external aluminium door set;
7. Redecoration of previously painted timber windows external door;
8. Work to the courtyard, roadside and south elevation.
The resident called the landlord, also on 5 March 2020, and said she had received its reminder to pay letter, but nothing prior to that. She had been aware it was carrying out a section 20 consultation, but as far as she was aware no actual work had been carried out. She queried whether she needed to pay. The call handler told her it was best for her to wait until she had spoken to the relevant team, and advised it would call her back in the next few days.
The resident called the landlord four more times between 6 March 2020 and 11 March 2020, and chased a response. On the last occasion she had been told she would receive a call back before 5pm, but this commitment was not met.
The landlord sent a further letter to the resident on 20 March 2020. It explained that its section 20 notice issued on 6 December 2018 had missed out the internal works carried out at the block. It apologised for the error and for initially invoicing the resident £2,268.14, and advised that it would instead charge the resident for the amount it gave during the consultation. The new amount to pay was given as £1,096.11.
On 26 March 2020 the resident emailed the landlord, and advised she had just received its invoice. She explained she had spoken to several staff members when the initial letters went out, and had requested clarification. She understood a mistake had been made, and reminded the landlord she had informed it her flat had not received any cyclical decorations. She advised her doorframe had been painted, but that was “all that had been done”. She told it her door was “in desperate need of repair” and rotting away, and she had had to remove some carpet. She explained she was frustrated to receive an invoice without a breakdown of the costs. The resident asked the landlord for a response which would set out how the matter would be resolved.
The landlord acknowledged this email on 27 March 2020, and when the resident chased it on 6 April 2020 it advised her that its service charge team was handling a high number of cases, and would be in touch within the next 30 days.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 2 June 2020, after she received a letter from it which chased payment of £924.49. It covered the same points as the letter of 28 February 2020, and again said it would seek a CCJ if it did not hear from the resident in the next seven days.
The landlord apologised to the resident the following day for the length of time she had had to wait for a response from the relevant team. The resident chased it again on 14 June 2020.
On 18 June 2020, the landlord sent another payment reminder letter, which covered the same points as its previous two letters, and advised it would seek a CCJ if payment was not made in the next 14 days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 July 2020. The landlord has advised this was dealt with “informally” and that it has “insufficient records”. The resident has advised that she was told on 31 July 2020 that the landlord did not have a breakdown of the costs from its contractor, and that it would request this. The landlord has advised that this was treated as a complaint resolution in error, and that the information that had been promised as its next step was not provided by the member of staff who had responded to the resident.
The landlord recorded a new stage 1 complaint on 27 August 2020, after the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the handling of the first complaint.
The resident has advised that she received the breakdown of the costs from the landlord on 3 September 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 September 2020. She thanked the staff member for their help in resolving the issues earlier in the year, and explained that she had received an email from the landlord earlier that day, which said she owed it money. She said she had been assured she “would not have to pay the £900” and asked the staff member to confirm this to their colleague. She asked for confirmation by email to advise when this was completed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 23 September 2020, and on 24 September 2020 it provided clarification. It explained that it had agreed that the redecoration of her windows and balcony door would be completed at no cost to herself, but she still needed to pay her contribution to the other works. It signposted her to support if she was experiencing financial hardship or was not able to pay the full amount in one go.
On 26 September 2020, the resident disputed that the cyclical works had been completed and reiterated her understanding that the landlord had agreed they would be completed at the contractor’s cost. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 September 2020, and explained:
1. It had initially understood her email of 20 September 2020 to convey that the resident had thought the landlord had agreed for the “overall” cost of the cyclical works to be covered by its contractor, and believed she should not be invoiced or chased for payment;
2. However, it understood her response of 26 September 2020 to clarify that she had in fact meant that the work to her windows and balcony door had not been completed, and the landlord should not seek payment until it had been;
3. It would liaise with its contractor and visit her block to “confirm the situation”, and would not chase her for payment until it had received confirmation that the work was completed.
Later that afternoon, the landlord emailed the resident and advised it had visited her block and “the work” looked to have been completed. It told her that “per [a member of staff’s] agreement, [she would] not be charged for this work”.
On 16 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident with an update on her stage 1 complaint:
1. Its contractors had agreed to return and repaint her windows and balcony door. The timeframe for this would be dependent on the weather, and if the following spring was warm and dry, it would be completed then. It explained it was necessary to wait, because paint would not adhere to wet timber and would flake;
2. It was sorry that “this work” had not been carried out earlier in the year, and it would be carried out “totally at the cost of the contractor”;
3. It had noted the resident’s report that her carpet had been damaged because her front door failed, and that her insurance claim had been unsuccessful. It noted she had also experienced damage to her carpet in 2017 due to a leak from the flat above. The staff member had checked the landlord’s systems and had been unable to find record of the resident having reported that her front door let water in, and therefore it could not offer any “financial help”;
4. It would uphold her complaint on the grounds that she did not receive the breakdown of costs when she requested it. It would close her complaint if it did not hear back within 28 days.
The resident replied to the landlord that day, and set out her ongoing dissatisfaction with its response:
1. She was disappointed that the works would not take place until the following year, and suggested it could have arranged these sooner if it had dealt with the matters she raised “in a more timely manner”;
2. The carpet damage in 2017 was unrelated, and she had replaced the carpet at that time. She had reported the recent damage to her door and the new carpet via the landlord’s online chat service and over the phone, and she had been given a case reference number. She reminded the member of staff handling her complaint that they had advised her to put in an insurance claim;
3. She was “extremely angry and frustrated” at how her complaint had been handled, and “the continued lack of communication”;
4. She advised the landlord she would need communication by email as she was unable to take phone calls due to work commitments.
On 20 November 2020 the landlord emailed the resident, acknowledged her frustration at the delays, and advised:
1. Her carpet did not “form part of [her] complaint”, but the complaint handler had wanted to help because they were “aware” her front door had “failed”;
2. The complaint handler had been provided with information from a colleague that confirmed the resident reported the damage to her carpet on 26 March 2020;
3. The complaint handler had also been provided with information that confirmed the resident contacted the landlord in February 2019 to report the issues with her door, and had been advised at that time it was her responsibility to repair;
4. This was “incorrect information” and the landlord apologised for this;
5. Normally the landlord would expect the resident to put in an insurance claim, however the complaint handler recognised it had failed to respond appropriately and would speak to a colleague “about compensating [the resident] for the carpet”;
6. It asked the resident to send it any quotes she had for the cost of replacing the carpet;
7. The complaint handler apologised that they had not been able to see the contacts from the resident on the system themselves, and advised it had highlighted an issue with the landlord’s systems which it would now deal with.
On 23 November 2020 the resident provided a quote for replacement carpet to the landlord.
On 14 December 2020 the landlord advised the resident of its decision regarding compensation:
1. It would “only” compensate the resident for her time and trouble, and not for her carpet replacement;
2. The complaint handler had sought to increase the landlord’s original offer, and had been given permission for an extra £9. The landlord would now offer the resident £159, to be paid directly to her bank account;
3. It would now close down the complaint, “with a commitment to get [the] external decorations completed in the spring when the weather conditions improve”. It advised it would reopen the complaint if the commitment was not fulfilled.
The resident responded the same day, and expressed her upset at the increase of £9. She told the landlord she did not accept its offer and wanted “the situation to be looked into”. She advised she would contact the Housing Ombudsman if she did not have a response from the landlord by 18 December 2020.
On 16 December 2020 the complaint handler emailed the resident and advised:
1. They were “unable to take this any further as the carpet does not form part of your complaint”;
2. They recommended the resident take the money that had been offered, as it was separate to her claim for the damaged carpet;
3. If the resident remained dissatisfied she should put in a “staff complaint” about the complaint handler;
4. They would now close her complaint.
On 4 January 2021 the resident emailed another member of staff at the landlord after she missed a call from them. She summarised the sequence of events since she had reported the damage to her front door and queried the charge for the cyclical works, and added:
1. She had been advised it was her responsibility to replace her front door, but she would not have had to do this if the landlord had maintained it properly;
2. The resident’s contents insurer had told her the damage to the carpet should be covered by the building insurance company. When she put in a claim to the building insurer, it advised it would not cover the costs for the damage because it had “happened over a period of time”, but “probably” would have paid if she had made a claim when she first reported the issue to the landlord;
3. The member of staff who inspected her window ledges and sills told her it looked like they had been painted without being sanded down, which was why they were flaking. The resident disputed that they had ever been “touched” by the contractor;
4. The resident asked if she needed to submit another complaint to get the situation resolved, and if accepting the offer of compensation for her time and trouble would prevent her from being paid for the carpet.
The landlord acknowledged her email and advised it would get back to the resident as soon as possible. The resident chased it on 23 February 2021, and explained she had been contacted by its service charge team and told she needed to pay the outstanding charge. The resident asked for clarity as to whether the landlord was investigating her carpet refund, or the “whole situation” and how it had been handled.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 26 March 2021 and apologised for the time it had taken to respond. It confirmed it had reviewed its records and would not increase its offer of compensation. The staff member advised they had found it “difficult to pick up on a situation [they were] not previously involved in”, and understood that it been confirmed that the contractor would attend again to complete the cyclical works to the resident’s windows.
On 4 April 2021 the resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive, to express her dissatisfaction with the way her complaint had been handled, and asked them to intervene before she went to the Housing Ombudsman Service and the small claims court. The resident explained that to resolve the matter satisfactorily, she wanted to be reimbursed for the cost of the replacement carpet, totalling £319.03. She told the landlord she considered this a reasonable offer, as she should be entitled to additional compensation for her time and “material distress and inconvenience”. The landlord acknowledged this on 7 April 2021, apologised that the resident was dissatisfied with its stage 1 complaint response and confirmed it had escalated her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord has supplied a timeline from its contractor, which included a “works meeting” on 16 April 2021. It noted that the internal work was agreed as completed, but external works were outstanding.
On 23 April 2021 the landlord issued an email in which it confirmed it had reviewed the response she had received to her stage 1 complaint, and it:
1. Apologised that the matters had not been concluded sooner;
2. Had identified “various improvements” to its processes, which it would discuss internally;
3. Would reimburse the resident £319.03 for her carpet.
On 26 April 2021 the resident thanked the landlord for resolving the matter of the carpet, but expressed concern that her credit rating could be affected by the debt still showing on her sundry account. She asked the landlord to remove the outstanding service charge.
On 29 April 2021 the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would arrange the payment of £319.03 the following day, and would look into the matter of the debt on the resident’s sundry account.
The landlord updated the resident on 7 May 2021. It confirmed the money for the carpet had been transferred to the resident’s bank account earlier that week, and it was seeking an update from the contractor regarding the cyclical decorations.
The landlord sent a further update on 19 May 2021, and advised the contractor’s planned attendance from 17 May 2021 had been postponed due to rain. The landlord advised it still expected the outstanding work to be carried out as a matter of urgency, and had included it on its ‘commitments report’. It explained this meant the resident could reopen her complaint at stage 2 if the works were not completed within a “reasonable period”.
The resident emailed the landlord’s chief executive, on 28 September 2021, and expressed her dissatisfaction with the lack of progress with her case. She explained that she wanted the landlord to honour what she had understood was a commitment that the cyclical work would be completed at no cost to herself, and “remove” the outstanding amount of £924.49 from her account.
On 7 October 2021 another member of staff at the landlord spoke to the resident and confirmed her outstanding concerns:
1. She did not receive a section 20 notice;
2. She was invoiced for the cyclical works months before they were carried out, and had later been assured this would be at no cost to herself;
3. Her “original complaint” had not been resolved as it had been “derailed” by the carpet, leaving other issues outstanding.
On 21 October 2021 the resident called the landlord, and it:
1. Assured her it would offer further compensation, but had not decided how much this would be yet;
2. Had established that a section 20 notice had been sent in the correct date range, and had no reason to “suspect that it hadn’t been received as intended”;
3. Signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman Service and Leasehold Valuation Tribunal (now the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber)) if she was not satisfied with the level of redress when it was offered.
The resident and the landlord corresponded by email on 22 October 2021. The landlord sent two external photos of her block and asked her to identify her flat, which she did. The landlord advised the photos were taken on 20 August 2020, and asked the resident to clarify whether no works at all had taken place, or just no works to the area above the communal door. The resident confirmed that no works had been carried out in her block, and the only work that had been done to her window and balcony was done in 2021.
The landlord’s records show it spoke with the resident on 10 November 2021 and advised it had exhausted its investigations and would close her complaint. It understood she remained dissatisfied with its response, and it signposted her to the Housing Ombudsman Service.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord sent an email to the resident, which summarised the action it had taken in order to reach its decision:
1. It had exhausted the sources of evidence available to it, and would not be able to consider the issues further;
2. The landlord’s systems indicated that the required section 20 notices were issued at the correct times. The landlord had cross-checked other estates that had section 20 notices issued in the same period, and had not had any reports of these not being received after issuing invoices. It therefore had to assume the notices were issued correctly to the resident;
3. The landlord recognised the resident was “adamant” that the cyclical works had not been completed, however the landlord’s staff and contractors were “equally adamant” that the works were carried out, but not to an acceptable standard. On this basis, the landlord had agreed the resident would not be charged for the contractor to reattend and repaint. It understood the resident was convinced that the contractor had not attended the first time, and the offer to waive charges had been “in relation to that”. The complaint handler had found it “impossible to determine” which version of events was “more accurate”;
4. The landlord offered £650 compensation as redress for the “significant amount of time” the resident had spent chasing an outcome, and the fact it “failed to fully grasp the issues and dedicate the appropriate time to understand the root cause at an earlier stage”;
5. It advised the compensation payment would be used to offset any arrears, and any remaining balance would then be paid directly to the resident;
6. This concluded its complaint process, and it signposted the resident to the Housing Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
On 23 November 2021 the resident chased the payment of the compensation, which she noted the landlord had decided to apply to her sundry account despite the fact she was in disagreement.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on the same day, and advised it would send a more detailed email response the next day.
The landlord emailed the resident on 24 November 2021 and advised:
1. The staff member who had been handling the resident’s compensation claim had changed roles on 11 November 2021, and no longer had permissions to authorise the payment. It was still pending the correct authorisation.
2. The sundry debt on the resident’s account, totalling £924.49, had been on hold since the resident disputed it. The landlord explained that the “conclusion” of her complaint would normally have led to the “release” of the invoice, and the compensation amount used to offset some of the arrears;
3. The member of staff was concerned that this would leave an outstanding balance to be paid by the resident, which “didn’t feel right” whilst the resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the dispute. The member of staff had discussed the resident’s case with a colleague and they had agreed to freeze the amount for three months, to give the resident the opportunity to go to the Housing Ombudsman;
4. The member of staff had also taken steps to ensure that the resident would not be issued automatic payment reminders in the meantime. This required manual intervention, and they had not yet been able to put these steps in place;
5. The landlord offered to pay the compensation payment directly to the resident, and asked her to supply her bank account details if she would prefer that;
6. The landlord advised it had set up a new complaints “taskforce”, which would ensure “there is a sound process in place to embed service improvements” that had been identified in the investigation of “complex” complaints such as the resident’s. It assured the resident it took complaints seriously and that it had “every intention” of learning from the issues she had experience.
The resident replied on the same day. She thanked the landlord for its “swift” response, but explained she did not feel it had resolved the issues she had raised. She felt she should have been notified that the landlord would freeze the invoice and not put her compensation towards the sundry debt on her account, as it had previously said it would. The resident queried whether paying the compensation directly to her bank account, as it now sought to do, was in line with its policy.
The resident has explained that she has been caused “high levels of anxiety and stress” over the three years she had to chase her landlord for responses. She felt “passed from person to person”, and that the landlord did not care about the issues she had raised.
The landlord has advised the Housing Ombudsman Service that it has made “improved record keeping” a “key corporate message” in the years since the resident’s stage 2 complaint.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s queries about cyclical works and a resulting service charge dispute

The resident initially complained that the works had not been completed, however both parties are in agreement that as of mid-2021 the work had been carried out.
As to whether the works were completed in 2019, it has not been possible to reconcile the resident and the landlord’s accounts. It was reasonable that the landlord recognised this in its final complaint response to the resident.
The landlord’s records indicate that it did comply with the requirements set out in the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) to consult, notify and invoice the resident for the cyclical works. It acted appropriately in reducing the initial bill, in recognition of its failure to include the internal works in its consultation.
It was reasonable that the landlord expected the resident to pay her share of the cyclical works, carried out in accordance with the terms of her lease. Its stage 2 complaint response provided clarity that this was its position and that it would not waive the charge. It has acted reasonably in putting the amount ‘on hold’ whilst the resident has escalated her complaint, including externally to the Housing Ombudsman. However, now the parties are in agreement that the works have been completed, it should confirm the amount still due from the resident.
The landlord’s communication with the resident from the time she first challenged the invoice was very poor. Its staff repeatedly used vague language which was open to interpretation and led the resident to believe that the landlord had committed to waive her entire service charge cost, which the landlord asserts was not its intention.
Examples of this vague language include:
1. References to “this work” and “the work” instead of specifying whether it meant the entire cyclical works programme or the painting of the resident’s windows and balcony door in 2021;
2. Telling the resident the work would be carried out “totally at the cost of the contractor”;
3. Telling the resident the work would be carried out “at no cost” to herself.
The landlord further confused matters after its stage 2 complaint process had been concluded, by telling the resident it “didn’t feel right” for it to proceed to recover the appropriately incurred costs for cyclical works.
For her part, the resident was clear throughout her communication with the landlord that she wanted her bill waived. Responsibility for the miscommunication lies fully with the landlord, and constitutes service failure on its part. It did not recognise this in its responses, and it should now ensure an appropriately senior member of staff apologises to the resident for the upset this caused her.
It would also be appropriate for it to compensate her for the distress and inconvenience caused by this poor standard of communication, and an order is made to that effect below.
The landlord took far too long to address the resident’s straightforward report that the contractor had not completed the cyclical works in 2019. The resident first queried whether the work had actually been carried out on 5 March 2020. She had to chase the landlord several times before she was able to speak with a member of staff in the relevant team, and when she had not received a response nearly four months later, she complained on 28 July 2020. It was not until a second complaint was logged a month later, and further chasing from the resident, that the landlord visited the resident’s block to visually assess the situation on 27 September 2020.
That is an unacceptable delay of nearly seven months, and the resident was caused significant inconvenience in having to repeatedly chase the landlord. She was also caused distress when she received several letters threatening her with a CCJ, when she had promptly queried the charge when first notified of it.
The landlord’s records indicate that it had signed off the external works on 4 July 2019, with the internal works signed off on 30 April 2019. It has not explained why it did not provide this detail to the resident much earlier.
The landlord subsequently advised the resident that it had accepted the work as complete after it carried out visual checks from ground level. Once it became clear that there was doubt as to the standard of work, if any, that had been done to the resident’s flat, the landlord found a reasonable resolution when it ensured that the contractor re-attended and applied paint to the woodwork in the correct weather conditions.
There was clearly doubt as to whether the resident had received the correct advice when she first reported water ingress to her front door. The landlord found a reasonable outcome when it agreed to pay for the carpet replacement, and it was appropriate that it apologised for the way it had originally handled the matter.
The landlord offered the resident £650 compensation for the impact of its delays in responding to her queries. This was appropriate, and we are satisfied that on this point, this was a proportionate figure given the high number of times the resident had to contact the landlord. As discussed above, the landlord failed to offer redress for the upset caused by the content of its communication; it would be reasonable for it to offer a further £150 for this. This would bring the total compensation for the impact of its poor handling of the resident’s queries about her service charge to £800.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord has identified that the resident’s first complaint was handled informally, and that this significantly affected the quality of its response. This is a reasonable assessment, and it is not surprising that the resident logged another complaint shortly afterwards, about the handling of the first one.
The landlord’s second stage 1 complaint response was not clear about the stage the complaint was at or the correct escalation path the resident could take, both when the landlord first sent a response on 16 November 2020 or when it provided an update to the resident on 14 December 2020. Importantly, it did not examine the core issue of whether or not the cyclical works had been completed in 2019 and whether a charge was therefore legitimate. Whatever the landlord’s view on that issue, the resident had asked clearly for it to explain its position to her and it should have provided this information to her.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was much improved, addressed the doubt around the completion of the works, and confirmed that it did expect the resident to pay the service charge. It also explained how the resident could escalate the complaint, this time to the Housing Ombudsman, if she remained dissatisfied.
The length of time it took the landlord to produce a full complaint response fell well outside the timeframes in its complaints policy, and also did not meet the standard set out in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
The resident’s email of 26 March 2020 could reasonably be taken as a stage 1 complaint. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code had not come into effect at that time, and it is accepted that the landlord recorded the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 28 July 2020, after she explicitly requested this. It is expected that this would not be an issue now the code is in place.
The second complaint it logged, one month later, was in truth an extension of the first complaint, and it would be appropriate to measure its response time from the earlier date. It was 79 working days until the landlord issued its response on 16 November 2020, and an additional 20 working days until its updated response on 14 December 2020.
Similarly, the resident’s contact on 4 January 2021 should have been taken as a request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. However, the landlord continued to respond outside its formal complaint process, only sending her an acknowledgement that it had logged a stage 2 complaint on 4 April 2021. That is a period of three months, where it should have taken this action within three working days.
Despite logging a stage 2 complaint, the landlord’s informal approach continued, and it at one point advised her it had closed her complaint but she could “reopen it” if the works did not take place as promised. It did not provide proper signposting to the Housing Ombudsman. The landlord did not issue an appropriately worded stage 2 response until it spoke to the resident on 10 November 2021 and followed this up in writing on 11 November 2021. That was seven months after it logged the stage 2 complaint.
The landlord should have recognised these serious failures in its stage 2 response. As it was, its response was fairly brief on the matter of “other issues along the way”, and it did not adequately demonstrate that it had understood what it had got wrong, or give details of appropriate learning to be taken from the resident’s experience.
The landlord then went on to change its mind about the steps it had set out in its stage 2 response regarding the payment of the compensation it had offered. As already discussed above, its stage 2 complaint handler risked giving the resident the impression that there was still doubt as to whether it was “right” for the landlord to recover the outstanding service charge. This extended the resident’s distress and inconvenience further, and prevented closure on the complaint process for her.
The net result of the landlord’s unacceptable approach to the handling of the resident’s complaint was that she remained in doubt that anyone had understood the details of her experience, and whether she had received a proper response.
Taken altogether, these failures amount to severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Due to the serious nature of its failure to provide the resident with a response to her main concern for one and a half years, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer significant compensation for the resident’s time, trouble and distress. A figure of £1000 would be appropriate here. It should also apologise to the resident.
For its part, the landlord has advised that it has now set up a complaints ‘taskforce’ which will investigate complex complaints, and identify the learning it can take from them. It must ensure it now handles complaints in line with the Ombudsman’s code, and is encouraged to note that the newest version includes a requirement that compensation payments are made directly to residents, rather than used to off-set any arrears.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s queries about cyclical works and the resulting service charge dispute.
In accordance with paragraph 42(k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s subject access request was outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord took far too long to confirm its course of action to the resident, but it did eventually ensure the outstanding work was carried out. It offered the resident compensation for her time and trouble in chasing responses, but it did not recognise the impact of its repeated use of unclear language.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was not in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code or its own policies. Its responses were unclear, incomplete, and staggered over an excessive time. Even after its final complaint response, it caused further confusion over its compensation payment and the outstanding balance on the resident’s service charge account.
The landlord did not adequately recognise its failures in regards to its complaint handling, and did not offer redress as would have been appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

An appropriately senior member of staff should contact the resident within two weeks of the date of this report and apologise to her for the upset and inconvenience its very poor communication and complaint handling has caused her. It should provide a copy of this to us when completed.
Within two weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should confirm to the resident the amount she will need to pay to clear the outstanding service charge.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should directly pay the resident the below compensation totalling £1,800:
1. £1,000 for the time, trouble, and distress caused by the failures in its complaint handling;
2. The £650 it previously offered, if it has not already been paid;
3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor standard of communication.
The landlord should review its current process for dealing with queries and complaints about service charges. This process should ensure:
1. Complaints about service charge related issues are promptly identified and addressed;
2. Complaint responses provide clarity and set out the actions that will be taken to put things right, where appropriate;
3. Complaints regarding service charges are dealt with in line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, including payment of compensation direct to residents rather than used to off-set any arrears.
The landlord should share the outcome of this review with this Service within eight weeks of the determination date.