Clarion Housing Association Limited (202008559)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008559

Clarion Housing Association Limited

21 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 concerns the landlord’s administration of the service charge account, specifically in respect of charges for communal works which were added to the 2018 service charge and were not needed and did not go ahead.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord at the property, which is a flat situated within a block. The resident receives communal services, in accordance with the terms of the lease, which includes decorating of the communal areas, for which he pays a service charge.
3. The landlord has a two-stage complaints procedure whereby it aims to investigate and respond to a complaint within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two. 
4. The landlord has not provided this Service with its Service Charge Policy.
5. The landlord’s compensation policy states that awards of between £250-£700 may be offered where there has been “considerable service failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”.  Its policy provides examples of service failures of this kind, including where a complainant has to repeatedly chase the landlord for responses and seek correction of mistakes.
6. On 30 June 2020, the landlord received the resident’s complaint about having been charged in services charges for communal decorating which had not taken place.
7. On 24 August 2020 the resident said that he chased the complaint with the landlord by telephoning it but he received no response back in relation to this. The resident has also said that he chased the landlord regarding the issue itself for two years (with the charge dating back to 2018). 
8. This Service has not been provided with evidence of the resident raising or chasing the matter or subsequent complaint, although the landlord has accepted that he did so, and also that its response to the complaint was delayed.
9. On 14 September 2020 the landlord provided its response to the complaint at stage one of its complaints procedure.  The landlord upheld the complaint. 
10. In terms of the charge for decorating works, it acknowledged that these were charged for and not required and did not go ahead.  The landlord advised that it would arrange a refund and would be in touch to confirm this.
11. Regarding the resident chasing the complaint, it addressed one occasion, explaining that the member of staff who was due to return the call from August was on annual leave and so was not advised to call back.
12. On 10 November 2020 the resident contacted this Service, dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the issues he had raised and his subsequent complaint, specifically, he had not yet received the refund.
13. On 18 November 2020, following contact from this Service, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. The landlord emailed the resident to advise him that this was the case and that it aimed to provide a formal response within 20 working days.
14. On 23 December 2020 the landlord responded to the complaint at stage two of its complaints procedure.  The landlord again upheld the complaint, reiterating its previous finding that it had charged the resident for decoration works, which were not required and did not take place, for which it apologised.
15. The landlord acknowledged too, that having recognised its error, it had not processed the refund as it said it would and in accordance with its processes.  In terms of its complaints handling, it apologised for its delay in responding to the complaint.
16. Compensation totalling £400 was offered in recognition of these service failures, comprising of £200 for failure to follow its process (in not processing the refund), £150 for recognition of time and effort in pursuing the complaint and £50 for delay in responding.
17. The landlord advised it had arranged processing of the refund, and also explained that as a result of the complaint it had revised is procedures so as to help prevent a recurrence.
18. Documentation provided to this Service demonstrates confusion on the part of the landlord as to the amount to be refunded and whether it was actually £288.73, rather than the £392.97 the resident had quoted (and it had accepted in its complaint responses). The documentation shows the landlord eventually agreeing that the amount to be refunded was £392.97.
19. On 19 April 2021, the resident advised this Service that although the £400 compensation had been received, the landlord had still not credited his service charge account with the money taken for the communal decorating works.

Assessment and findings

20. In its response to the complaint, the landlord accepted that it made an error in its administration of the service charge account, in its charging for communal decorating which did not take place.  The landlord appropriately apologised for this error and took steps to address its processes to help prevent a recurrence.  It was also appropriate for the landlord to state that it would refund the service charge account with the money it had deducted. 
21. The landlord’s actions were appropriate because in confirming it would refund the money erroneously taken, the landlord sought to put things right.  Having recognised an error, the landlord acted reasonably in apologising for the mistake and reviewing its procedures to minimise the risk of a mistake of this nature from happening again.
22. The landlord failed to do what it said it would do, however, by not issuing the refund it said it would.  This undermined its integrity and the resident’s trust in the landlord, leading to escalation of the matter to stage two of the complaints procedure.
23. The compensation offered by the landlord at stage two was appropriate and reasonable, insofar as it was not obliged to offer compensation, which was separate to the issuing of the refund.  This is because compensation is discretionary, even with the acceptance of service failures as was the case here. 
24. The amount of compensation offered and the associated apportioning of amounts, was in accordance with its own compensation policy and in line with the Ombudsman’s published ‘Guidance on Remedies’ for service failures at this level. The landlord paid the compensation as it said it would, although continued to delay in refunding the resident’s service charge account for the decorating charges.
25. The documentation provided to this Service indicates there was confusion around the amount that needed to be refunded to the resident. That confusion went back and forth between different individuals and teams, with no indication of responsibility or accountability being taken by any one person. This lack of responsibility and accountability led to avoidable delay, with no communication or explanation to the resident about it.
26. The landlord twice agreed to refund the resident’s service charge, despite the amount not being clear, clarification of which which should have been done as part of the complaint investigation, and prior to it issuing its complaints responses.
27. In regard to the delay responding to the complaint at both stages one and two of the complaints procedure; the landlord appropriately recognised and apologised for the failing, although it did not explain why it had taken so long to respond and there is no evidence of learning in this respect.  The compensation offered in respect of chasing and delay was appropriate, as set out above, however, compensation is only one way of seeking to resolve a complaint; learning from complaints is a fundamental part of complaints handling and this is not evident here.

Determination (decision)

28. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaint.

Reasons

29. There was service failure insofar as the landlord, having recognised an error, failed to put it right by doing what it said it would do, for a protracted period of time.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

30. If not already done so, the landlord to refund the resident the monies owed (via credit to his service charge account).
31. The landlord to provide evidence to this Service of changes made to its procedures following the complaint, as it advised it had done in its responses to the resident.
32. The landlord to pay the resident an additional £100 compensation in respect of the further delay.
33. The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendation

34. The landlord to review its communication and complaints handling processes, ensure lessons are learned in respect of complaint handling in this case and that adequate training for staff is rolled out.