A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202200406)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200406

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information, after receiving an increased service charge bill.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

3. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord. The property is a flat in a block on a small estate.
4. In September 2021, after receipt of the 2020 to 2021 service charge statement, the resident contacted the landlord to request clarification and a detailed breakdown for increases to costs for repairs; lighting and electricity; ground maintenance; and fire safety. She noted she had raised concern about grounds maintenance not being completed, and queried how electricity was so high.
5. The landlord acknowledged this almost a month later, thanking the resident for her patience, and saying that it would send out a commentary and relevant supporting documentation related to her queries. A few days later, it sent out a letter to residents.
   1. It explained that the estimated service charge was not enough to cover repairs. It detailed works orders and costs for repairs, including 6 fire doors. It explained that there were no invoices as its contractual arrangement with its contractor was that a set amount was paid every year for all in scope repairs.
   2. It said that the electricity supplier had increased monthly estimates after an updated meter reading around July 2020.
   3. It said that some electricity and lighting invoices from 2019 had originally been included, and had now been removed. It also said that a duplicate invoice of around £600 was found in the maintenance costs, whose removal would bring the amount to within the budget set for this component.
6. In November 2021, the resident replied that the landlord’s response was inadequate, and she requested invoices for repairs and fire doors; the meter reading taken before July 2020; and invoices and dates for the services provided for fire safety and ground maintenance. The landlord responded to this the same month, enclosing estimated electricity invoices for April 2020 to March 2021, and saying that its policy was that further invoices came at a cost of £36.
7. On 17 November 2021, the resident said she wanted to make a formal complaint about the amount that the service charge had increased and the handling of her requests. She detailed the previous correspondence. She re-requested copies of invoices. She noted it was stated that 6 communal fire doors were fitted but said she believed there were only 4 communal doors at the 2 blocks. In December 2021, the landlord responded. It said that it had recently visited the block to look into residents’ concerns about fire doors. It explained that there were multiple fire doors, more than the 4 believed, and that communal doors such as cupboards were classed as fire doors. It said it could not tell which doors had been changed as they had all been painted as part of cyclical works.
8. In February 2022, the resident requested a final response to her complaint. She restated requests for repairs invoices; invoices for the fire doors and confirmation of their locations; the electricity meter reading before July 2020; invoices and dates in respect to fire safety; and invoices and dates in respect to ground maintenance.
9. In June 2022, the landlord issued a final response to the complaint after contact from the Ombudsman. It acknowledged that the complaint should have been escalated in December 2021. It noted the resident’s information requests and that she had a legal right to inspect service charge documents within 6 months of summaries of accounts. It acknowledged that the resident had not been provided requested information or communicated with effectively. It said it would provide the information within a few days and this would be monitored by staff. It also said that staff training would be arranged in respect to managing expectations and communicating effectively. It apologised for the poor service and awarded £220 for time, trouble and communication.
10. Following the response, the landlord sent physical copies of information to the resident that included grounds maintenance invoices, work sheets and photos; invoices for repairs; invoices for fire safety maintenance visits and job sheets; and a breakdown and location for fire door works, which it explained were for 3 communal doors and 3 cupboard doors. It was unable to locate a reading before July 2020 and said a reading would be taken and supplied to the utility provider to update the account.
11. In July 2022, the resident responded to the landlord. She noted that the repairs invoices were for April to October 2020, and the fire safety invoices were for April to July 2020, and she queried where remaining ones up until March 2021 were. She raised a number of concerns about charges for lights; electricity costs; grounds maintenance; window cleaning; concierge and security; and whether the fire doors had actually been changed.
12. The resident subsequently brought her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was unhappy she had not received a reply to her July 2022 email. It is understood that she disputed that a number of works and services had been provided, and felt that the landlord had not evidenced the circa £300 difference between the estimated and actual service charges that she was being asked to pay.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

13. The resident has raised dissatisfaction with the level of evidence for costs and disputes some works and services have been provided. The Ombudsman is not able to make definitive decisions about increases to, and the reasonableness of, service charges, and the resident was previously informed that it is not our role to assess the standard of services or their cost. The resident is obligated to pay towards estimated and actual service charges, and it does not appear unusual that there may be variances to the level of the amounts mentioned in correspondence. Some recommendations are made about the resident’s concerns, but the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) is best placed to consider what are essentially disputes about the reasonableness of the charges, and whether costs the resident is concerned about are reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information, after receiving an increased service charge bill

14. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that the response to the resident’s information requests was not reasonable. When the resident clearly requested information such as invoices, the landlord’s handling was not in line with its legal obligations and will have caused frustration to the resident. It was therefore right that the landlord apologised, offered compensation, detailed steps to try to improve service, and took steps to provide information to the resident. These went a long way to put right the resident’s complaint. However, there are aspects of the landlord’s response which was not satisfactory.
15. The landlord confirmed that there would be staff training in respect to managing expectations and communication, but the landlord does not demonstrate in its response that this went far enough. The initial responses to the resident’s enquiries showed a lack of regard for the landlord’s legal obligations in respect to the provision of service charge information, which is not appropriate for a leasehold function. The provision of information to the resident was also protracted, when the type of information requested was not unusual and should be readily available to provide. The landlord should therefore have demonstrated that it took steps to ensure that staff responded to such information requests appropriately, and to ensure that processes are in place to support timely responses to such information requests.
16. The response to the information request at the final stage of the complaint was positive and an appropriate outcome for the complaint, however the resident raised concern that some periods lacked invoices. She subsequently reported a lack of response to these concerns. This indicates that information was omitted, or there was a lack of customer focused explanation when providing the invoices as well as when the resident raised queries after, which is not satisfactory.
17. Overall, while the landlord acknowledged some issues with its handling, it should have demonstrated that it took further steps to avoid the issues seen in the case, and when it provided further information it appeared to omit relevant information and failed to provided explanation about why. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information, after receiving an increased service charge bill.

The landlord’s complaint handling

18. The resident said she wanted to make a formal complaint in November 2021. However, it is not clear that any response from the landlord until its June 2022 final response was a response within its complaint procedure. This meant that the landlord did not follow its complaint procedure and that there was a 7 month delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The confusion caused by the landlord’s handling also meant that it provided a final stage complaint response in June 2022, when a stage 1 response may have been more appropriate, and the resident was therefore deprived of a proper process in respect to her complaint.
19. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaint should have been escalated in December 2021, and confirmed that there would be staff training in respect to managing expectations and communication. However, the landlord does not demonstrate that its lessons learned went far enough for complaint handling. It should have demonstrated in its response that it would take corrective action to ensure that its services and staff were aware of, and followed, its formal complaint procedure. This leads the Ombudsman to find service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
20. It is noted that a previous determination ordered the landlord to ensure it is compliant with our Complaint Handling Code, therefore only a recommendation is made for it to ensure that staff are aware of the processes to follow when in receipt of formal complaints.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was:
    1. service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for information, after receiving an increased service charge bill.
    2. service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

22. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £180 for the issues identified. This is in addition to the £220 it awarded.
23. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, provide the resident with the missing repairs and fire safety invoices for the 2020 to 2021 service charge, or explanation about their omission.
24. The landlord to, within 8 weeks, carry out a review of processes in respect to the collation and provision of service charge information that may be requested when it sends out summaries of accounts. The landlord should consider any necessary changes to ensure such information is supplied to requestors in as timely and a comprehensive way as possible in line with its legal obligations. The landlord should provide a copy of the outcome to the Ombudsman.

Recommendations

25. The landlord to, if it has not already, review the resident’s concerns about the 2020 to 2021 service charge, including that fire doors have not actually been fitted and that areas of the estate did not receive maintenance they were supposed to. It should then set out its position on these to the resident, and advise her of how she can dispute the charges if she wishes to do so.
26. The landlord to ensure that staff are aware of its formal complaints procedure and processes to follow when they receive complaints.