Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202107344)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107344

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

4 March 2022

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The resident’s dispute of the accuracy of her service charges.
    2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge enquiries.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure;
  3. In parts of the resident’s complaints to the landlord, and to the Ombudsman, the resident disputes the level of service charges the landlord has told her is owed. Such disputes about the level of service charges are more appropriately considered by the First Tier Property Tribunal. One of the Tribunal’s roles is to investigate and make binding findings about disputes of this nature. Because of that, in line with paragraph 39(i), this investigation will not seek to determine whether the resident’s service charges are accurate, but will consider the overall reasonableness of the landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s enquiries. Any references to the service charge dispute are for background only.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder and the landlord is the freeholder. The property is a flat within a block of flats.
  2. On 20 November 2020, the landlord sent the resident a statement, detailing her balance due for the block service charges for the period 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2020.
  3. On 23 November 2020 the resident raised an enquiry with the landlord, about her service charge statement. She disputed the level of service charge owed for the block refuse removal (disposal of bulk rubbish), pest control and fire safety. The resident asked that the landlord provide a breakdown for each service and an explanation of what work was carried out. She explained that she had reported residents who dumped rubbish in the past. She said it was unfair for her to incur the charges for residents who dumped bulk rubbish, and said those who did so should be charged instead.
  4. According to the landlord’s records, on 24 November 2020 the resident called the landlord. She explained that her service charge statement did not reflect the amount she had paid to date, nor had to pay by March 2021. She deducted the service charge payable by March 2021 from the actual service charges for 2020-2021 and advised of the difference she owed.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s query on 24 November 2020, and advised that the service charge team would investigate and respond within 30 days.
  6. The landlord’s records show, that between 30 November 2020 and 2 February 2021, the resident chased it for a response.
  7. On 12 February 2021 the landlord advised the resident that it could not identify who dumped bulk items, and so all residents would have to “bear the cost for maintaining the estate and having [the] items removed”. The landlord asked that she report to it if she witnessed specific residents fly-tipping or dumping bulk items, to enable it to charge those residents directly. The landlord advised that it had incorrectly budgeted the cost of the contract for fire safety. It explained how that had happened, and apologised for the error. The landlord advised that it would arrange a breakdown for the pest control charges and would forward them to her once received.
  8. The resident responded to the landlord’s email on 12 February 2021. She said she had made several reports about residents who fly-tip, however no reports were provided on what was done (there was no evidence provided of these reports). She said that cameras were in place and that she had asked on numerous occasions to see the footage to identify who was dumping the rubbish. She questioned why the landlord had not offered a gesture of good will (GOGW) for its error in the fire safety charges.
  9. On 18 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident, explaining that it could not share images of the CCTV to residents as per general data protection regulation (GDPR) guidelines. It asked again that she provide details of any residents she witnessed fly tipping. It explained that because the fire safety charge was budgeted incorrectly, and the resident was unable to contribute towards the full cost, she would still be liable to pay any outstanding amounts.
  10. According to the landlord’s records on 3 March the resident questioned why the landlord had not contacted her as the 30-day period had passed. The resident asked that her service charge statement be corrected and reissued along with an explanation for the mistake and the lack of effort to resolve the issue.
  11. The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 23 March 2021. It acknowledged that the resident’s November enquiry was not replied to within its timescales. It explained the reason for the delay, and said it would compensate her for it. The landlord confirmed that it had sent the resident’s service charge breakdown, and explained that the cost of removing fly tipping was a chargeable cost of maintaining the estate, it said it would send a letter to residents advising them of the consequences of fly tipping. The landlord advised that its officer had contacted the Environmental Services team about the pest control charges who would respond to the resident directly. It advised her to contact the leasehold property manager if she had any disputes. The landlord said that it was upholding her case due to the delay in its response. It apologised to the resident for its lack of response to her enquiry made in November, for the inconvenience and delays, and offered £35 compensation. It advised of the actions it had taken to improve its service, including staff training on record keeping. The landlord advised how the resident could escalate her complaint if she was dissatisfied with its response
  12. No evidence of an escalation request was provided for this investigation. However, on 6 May 2021 the landlord issued a second complaint response. It acknowledged that its earlier responses were poorly presented and had not addressed the issues with clarity. It said the letter should have set out a potential remedy if the resident wanted to challenge its service charge more formally through the First tier Tribunal, and it explained how the matter should have been handled. It said that the bulk refuse removable charge was outside the normal expectations, but that it did reflect its expenditure as invoiced from its contractors. It explained that there was is an ongoing difficulty identifying who dumped bulk items and rubbish, and therefore all residents would have to bear the cost for maintaining the estate and having the items removed. The landlord offered the same advice about reporting residents who were fly-tipping, and advised that it would write to all residents “informing them of their obligations on [the] matter”. It said that it had underestimated the cost of fire safety inspections on the estate the previous year, but advised that it took steps to ensure the correct budgets were applied, to reduce the fluctuations in the cost of the service between the estimate and actuals. The landlord said, that it had requested a copy of the pest control invoice from its Environmental Services team and would forward it to the resident, once received.
  13. The landlord acknowledged that the service charges the resident queried had significant increases from the estimated costs. It explained that in two of the instances she raised, the costs were responsive to the situation on the estate. The landlord said the costs incurred were reasonable and conformed to the relevant clauses of her lease, and said if she wished to see the invoices it would waive any associated fees. The landlord advised that an adjustment was being made to take account of her payments in 2019-2020. It explained its actions taken to improve its service including; holding a training programme to improve the presentation of information; re-organising the leasehold team to improve response times and quality; and replacing its contact management systems. The landlord advised that it would increase its original compensation offer of £35 to £100 due to the “poor quality of the response.” It explained how the resident could raise her complaint with this Service if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
  14. On 29 June 2021, the resident contacted this Service, she raised similar issues as in her email sent in November 2020. She said that she had rejected the landlord’s final response because she had not received the correct service charge statement. She raised concerns about its handling and its communication in response to her queries.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord has a two-stage complaint procedure. It advises that an acknowledgement would be sent within two working days and sets out a timescale of ten working days for the first complaint response. However, it does not provide timescales for its stage two response, common practice among landlords would usually be for a final complaint response within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s compensation policy aims to provide an efficient and responsive service to its residents. It advises that where the service delivery does not meet the service standard it will consider compensation to affected residents.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s enquiries

  1. On 23 November 2020, the resident disputed the accuracy of her service charge statement, she asked that the landlord provide a breakdown for each service and an explanation of what work was carried out. It advised that it would investigate and respond within 30 days. However, its records showed that the resident had to chase for a response well after the advised 30-day time period had passed. It is usually considered good practice for a landlord to keep a resident informed of any delays and manage their expectations accordingly, rather than residents having to chase for updates. On 3 March 2021, the resident asked that her service charge statement be corrected and reissued along with an explanation for the mistake and lack of effort to resolve the issue. On 12 March 2021 the landlord provided an explanation for the error made, it apologised to her, and said that it would ensure it did not reoccur. This was in line with its compensation policy, which lists an explanation, an apology and efforts to ensure similar failings are not repeated as potential remedies.
  2. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it acknowledged that the response to the resident’s November enquiry was delayed. It confirmed that it had sent the service charge breakdown she requested, and it provided a further explanation for the error. The landlord apologised to the resident for its lack of response to her enquiry made in November. It advised of the actions taken to improve its service, apologised for the inconvenience and delays, and offered £35 compensation, for its service failures. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise its failings and to apologise. An offer of compensation was appropriate and in line with its compensation policy, which advises that the landlord will offer compensation where there is failure to provide a service in line with its service standards and/or provide service or act in a timely manner.
  3. The resident asked that the landlord provide a breakdown for each service and an explanation of what work was carried out. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it provided a breakdown costs included in the service charges, and explained the reasons for them. The landlord acknowledged that its earlier responses were poorly presented and had not addressed the issues with clarity. It explained its actions taken to improve its service. It was appropriate for the landlord to review its handling, recognise the lack of clarity in its response and to apologise and provide a more detailed explanation to the resident’s queries. It increased the compensation offer to £100 to take account for its poor-quality response. It was suitable for the landlord to revise its compensation offer and to provide a more appropriate offer considering the inconvenience caused to the resident. The compensation offer was in line with its compensation policy.
  4. Ultimately there were delays and clarity shortcomings by the landlord in how it handled the resident’s enquiries and complaints. However, the landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging its failings this and apologising. It explained how it would improve its complaint handling to prevent the same failings happening again and offered compensation. These were all reasonable remedies to its mistakes.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s service charge enquiries satisfactorily.