Clarion Housing Association Limited (202008587)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202008587

Clarion Housing Association Limited

22 November 2021


Our approach

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. The Ombudsman seeks to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. 

In deciding whether a complaint falls within their jurisdiction, the Ombudsman will carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The level of service charges and the affordability of those charges.
    2. Issues with the correct level of estimated charges and billing in previous years.
    3. The cost level for estate services not being fair in comparison to other developments and their service charges.
    4. General concerns about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (jurisdictional decision)

  1. 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. After carefully considering all the evidence, I have determined that the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Summary of events

  1. In March 2019, the landlord communicated to the residents on the estate that it would be increasing the amount of service charges from the following month.
  2. In a letter dated 25 March 2019, two councillors from the borough wrote to the landlord, setting out reasons why the increased charges should be suspended.
  3. In April 2019, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. The crux of the complaint made at the time, concerned the increase in service charges and the resident’s request for the landlord to justify the new service charge amount.

 

  1. In May 2019, the resident raised a further complaint to the landlord where they requested an audit of the account actuals to justify the rise in the level of service charges. The landlord acknowledged the complaint in the same month and informed the resident that the account actuals would be made available in September 2019.
  2. In November 2019, the resident – along with other concerned residents on the estate – held a meeting with their local councillors. In the same month, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord via Twitter. Aspects of this complaint concerned the landlord’s complaints process itself, along with it not referring to historic issues and the resident not being provided with information or responses to issues correctly.
  3. In December 2019, a further meeting was held between the resident, other concerned residents, their local councillors and the landlord. From the information this Service has seen, certified account actuals were not available from the landlord at that time.
  4. In February 2020, the landlord increased service charges again. The resident started a petition and states that they gathered the signatures of about 100 residents from the affected estates; whereby they condemned the lack of consultation and the unsustainable increases to service charges.
  5. Between the months of April and September 2020, several pieces of correspondence were sent between the resident and the landlord. Some of this pertained to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the landlord failing to adhere to its complaints procedures and its overall handling of the complaints raised. The resident also raised concerns about the landlord’s decision to contact other residents about arrears while the complaint remained unresolved.
  6. During the above period, a further complaint was raised following a resident’s meeting which took place on 17 June 2020. From the information this Service has seen, this complaint was raised by a senior member of staff on behalf of the resident, following the concerns that were discussed at that meeting.
  7. On 29 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident under stage 1 of its complaints process. This letter confirmed that senior landlord staff had met with the resident (acting as Chair of a resident’s association) along with three other members of the association and two councillors. The letter confirms the resident raised a number of ongoing concerns relating to service charge increases.

 

 

  1. The letter also outlines the three outcomes the resident wanted in order to resolve the complaint. These were that:
    1. general needs residents should have an increase of no more than 3% for their service charge based on 2016/17 figures;
    2. private tenure residents should have an increase of no more than 22% for their service charge based on 2016/17 figures;
    3. all service charge arrears should be written off for all residents.
  2. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and escalated the complaint.
  3. On 20 October 2020, the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaint. The letter sets out the reasons behind the escalation made by the resident – which chiefly amongst them – relates to increases in service charges being unreasonable. In that letter, the landlord acknowledged that its “estimation process could have been better” and that it had decided to refund administration fees for the previous three years. The landlord also wrote that, when compared to similar estates, that the overall cost level for the estate was fair and reasonable.
  4. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response and brought their complaint to this Service in November 2020.
  5. In April 2021, the resident provided this Service with 54 signature pages from neighbouring properties. The resident explained that these people wished to be attached to their complaint. The resident explained that the complaint they wished us to consider concerned:
    1. Service charge increases and the landlord’s failure to comply with legal obligations under Section 21 of the Landlord Tenant Act 1985.
    2. Poor communications relating to service charges – these were not specified.
    3. Complaint handling – no specific instances were referred to, generally, this concerned allegations that the landlord failed to log complaints, unreasonably delayed when responding to complaints, allegations that it manipulated complaints; and, that it did not provide an accessible complaint process.

Reasons

  1. Paragraph 39 (f), (g) and (i) of the Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion”:

“(f) concern policies which have been properly decided by the member in accordance with relevant and appropriate best practice, unless the policy may give rise or contribute to a systemic failure.”

“(g) concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.”

“(i) 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.”

  1.  The substantive aspect of this complaint concerns the level of service charges and the affordability of those charges. This formed the basis of the complaint made by the resident to the landlord in April 2019. The subsequent complaints made to the landlord after this date, relate to the original service charge complaint (albeit with differing concerns, such as the estimation of charges used in previous years and whether the cost level for estate services is comparable with other similar estates).
  2. The Ombudsman cannot consider complaints about the level of service charges, or service charge increases. This is a matter for the First-tier Tribunal to consider.
  3. The resident has also complained that the landlord is in breach of its obligations under Section 21 of the Landlord Tenant Act 1985. The Ombudsman cannot determine that a landlord is in breach of legislation, this is also a matter for the First-tier Tribunal to consider.
  4. In correspondence the resident has provided to this Service, they maintain that the complaint is not one about service charges, but instead, relates to the landlord’s overall handling of the case. The resident asserts the landlord has refused to respond to the resident’s complaints in a timely manner and that it amounts to maladministration. In its response to the resident’s complaints and other correspondence, the landlord has explained that it believes it has complied with its obligations in relation to providing information and updates about the resident’s Service charges.
  5. Whilst the Ombudsman understands and appreciates the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling throughout the complaints process, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether there has been landlord failure. Both parties are in dispute about matters relating to the calculation of service charges and information provided about this. Where the resident says that the landlord has unreasonably delayed in providing information, the landlord says that it has not in all cases. The resident has also complained that the landlord has failed to provide all of the information it is required to, further contributing to delays, however, in correspondence to the resident, the landlord does not always agree. Assessing this, would require the Ombudsman to investigate whether the landlord was compliant with its obligations towards service charges and, whether any delays were therefore reasonable. As we have set out above, it follows that if we cannot investigate the substantive aspect of the complaint itself, then the Ombudsman cannot assess the overall handling of this issue.
  6. Finally, the resident and their neighbours, have asked the Ombudsman to consider a complaint about the landlord’s general approach to complaint handling. This Service can only investigate complaints about specific housing issues and does not investigate complaints about landlord’s policies.  For the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the complaint is one the Ombudsman cannot consider further.