Anchor Hanover Group (202014722)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014722

Anchor Hanover Group

27 September 2021

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 landlords handling of the residents reports of:
   1. The level of service charge at the property.
   2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

2. 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.
3. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the level of service charge at the property is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
4. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in his opinion:

Concern the level of rent or service charge of the amount of the rent or service charge increase. 

5. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to make enquiries of the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) for information in that regard.

Background and summary of events

Background

6. The resident is an assured non-shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a one-bedroom flat and is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the tenancy agreement. The resident is a local housing association.
7. The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy, the policy states that the resident must be kept updated throughout the complaints process. If the resident made a complaint at the first stage, the landlord should formally respond within 14 calendar days however this can be extended for complex cases up to 20 calendar days. If the resident is dissatisfied with the response, the resident can request that the decision be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process and a response provided within 14 calendar days.
8. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the resident is responsible for paying a monthly rent and service charge at the property. The service charge is made up of a general service charge and support costs.

Summary of events

9. On 1 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and complained that access to communal lounge facilities had been denied during the pandemic and that he had not seen a corresponding reduction in the service charge cost. He also advised that wording used in a newsletter published by the landlord was ‘highly offensive’. The resident raised a number of questions he wanted answered including:
   1. What a Scheme Manager’s functions / duties / job description were?
   2. What hours were worked by the Scheme manager over the last 12 months and how they were accountable?
   3. Why the increase in non-rent charges was ‘nearly 14 times the current rate of inflation?’
10. On 8 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident in relation to his questions and advised that it would provide a response within 14 days.
11. On 9 March 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and advised that the Scheme Managers duties were explained in the tenant’s information pack provided at the start of the tenancy.
12. On 15 March 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage one response in relation to the refund of the service charge costs due to a reduction in services including the closure of communal areas and reduction in on-site management. The landlord advised that Housing Associations can only charge for money that had been spent during that year. It advised that its service charges are reconciled at the end of the financial year and this meant that it was too early to say what effect the current situation would have on costs over the whole year. It advised that there may be areas where costs decrease however many costs would remain the same or may possibly increase. It concluded that it was too early to know if there would be any savings but stated that it always tried to get the best possible price for services.
13. On 22 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident stated that the landlord’s response did not directly address his compliant in relation to the refund of the service charge for the extended withdrawal of the lounge or a newsletter distributed by the landlord. The resident raised that he was also yet to receive a response in relation to a question asked in relation to the amount of hours worked by staff at the estate and how they are verified and why service charge cost had increased.
14. On 27 May 2021, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two final response and advised that the information received in its stage one response was correct. It explained that in relation to questions about management fees, that although the resident may not have seen Managers on site as frequently as normal, full management had taken place, albeit some of the works had been carried out by Managers working from home. It stated that this was implemented following Government guidelines to ensure all residents and Managers were kept safe this is also the reason that communal facilities were closed. It highlighted that residents were notified that it would be trialling reduced hours for scheme managers.
15. On 27 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed that its response still failed to deal with the specifics of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

16. The resident made an initial complaint to the landlord on 1 March 2021 in relation to the level of service charge at the property, he also raised a number of question that he wanted answered as highlighted in Paragraph 9 and 13 above. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 8 March 2020 and advised it would provide a response within 14 days, the landlord appropriately provided a response on 15 March 2021 in line with its complaints policy.
17. The landlord however failed to address a number of the questions that were raised by the resident in his stage one complaint. Under s3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. It would have been reasonable to expect that the landlord took the time to address the content of the complaint in line with best practice and procedure. This would include:
    1. Supplying the resident with the information in relation to the Scheme Manager’s functions / duties / job description.
    2. If available providing information about the hours and policies around accountability of the Scheme Manager’s.
    3. Addressing the resident’s complaint in relation to the wording used in a newsletter published by the landlord.
18. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process on 22 March 2021 and the landlord provided its stage two final response on 27 May 2021. This represents a one-and-a-half-month delay in the landlord providing the resident with its stage two response, the landlord failed to acknowledge the delay or seek to communicate with the resident for the reason behind it.  This was not approprate or in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. As above in paragraph 16, the landlord again failed to address some of concerns raised by the resident or provide an adequate answer as to why the information was not available.
19. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate or in line with its complaints policy and it failed to adequately respond to the resident’s individual complaints which caused the resident noted distress and inconvenience.

Determination (decision) 

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

21. The complaint handling by the landlord complied with its required timeline at stage one however the landlord failed to adequately respond to the resident’s individual complaints causing noted distress to the resident. There was also a significant delay in providing the resident with its stage two response which was not approprate or in line with its complaints policy. It is expected that member Associations comply with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code and address all points of a complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

22. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £100 in respect of the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident as a result of the highlighted complaint handling failures.
23. The landlord is to make this payment to the resident within four weeks and to update this service when payment has been made.

Recommendations

24. The landlord provides the resident with a further written explanation to the questions asked by the resident including:
    1. Supplying the resident with the information in relation to the Scheme Manager’s functions / duties / job description.
    2. If available providing information about the hours and policies around accountability of the Scheme Manager’s.
    3. Addressing the resident’s complaint in relation to the wording used in a newsletter published by the landlord.