Clarion Housing Association Limited (202127738)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127738

Clarion Housing Association Limited

25 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about his service charges and its handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the property, which is a ground floor flat within a block of similar properties. The lease began in June 2014.

Scope of Investigation

The resident’s complaint concerns the information he had requested about the service charge increase, the landlord’s response to the queries he raised about the accuracy of the increase, and how this had been calculated. In line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. As such, this report will not determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable, or whether any reimbursement of the service charge is due to the resident, but focus on the landlord’s communication with the resident and whether its response was reasonable in the circumstances.
Complaints concerning the level of a rent or service charge are best suited to be considered by the First Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), who can establish whether service charges are reasonable or payable. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on taking this element of his complaint further.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations.

The resident’s lease agreement states that the resident must contribute towards the landlord’s costs through the service charge. The charge broadly covers costs associated with management, and communal maintenance and repairs.
The lease states that both parties agree to comply with the provisions made in sections 18 to 30B of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985).
In line with Section 21 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), a leaseholder has the right to ask their landlord to provide a summary of the relevant costs which make up their service charges for the last accounting period. Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) gives leaseholders the right to request (in writing) facilities to inspect a landlord’s accounts, receipts and other documents which support the service charge figures. This request must be made within 6 months of receiving the summary. The landlord must provide facilities for inspecting relevant information available within 1 month of the request.
The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints procedure. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage 2. The landlord aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If, at any stage, there is likely to be a delay, the landlord is expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an expected response date.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that compensation awards of £50-£250 may be used in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the resident. Examples include failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact. It further states that compensation awards in the range of £250-£700 may be used where there has been considerable failure but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples include a resident repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that resident.

Summary of events

On 20 September 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter detailing the 2020-21 actual service charge. The actual cost of the resident’s service charge for 2020-21 was £626.42 higher than the estimate previously provided for the year. The letter confirmed that this would be charged to the resident’s account on 30 September 2021. Attached to the letter was a breakdown summary of the charges for communal services, detailing the variance between the estimate and actual costs. The landlord also provided a leaflet on how the charge could be paid and a summary of tenant’s rights and obligations in relation to the service charges and administration charges.
The resident emailed the landlord on 23 September 2021 to ask for a full set of receipts for the finalised service charge accounts. He said that this was a request under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. He did not believe the charges were accurate and asked for a response within 10 working days. He added that he intended to invoice the landlord and apply a 20% administration fee for the time spent communicating with the landlord regarding issues.
Between 23 September 2021 and 6 October 2021, the resident sent approximately 4 emails to the landlord pursuing a response. He asked that the matter was escalated as he did not feel comfortable paying the increased charges until he had the evidence to show that he was liable for them. He added that he could not afford to pay a charge that had doubled and expressed dissatisfaction with the time it was taking to receive a response. The landlord provided a reference number for his enquiry on 1 October 2021 and confirmed that all other correspondence had been forwarded to the relevant team on 6 October 2021.
On 6 October 2021, the resident asked how the matter could be escalated as he was dissatisfied with the length of time he had been waiting. He raised specific concerns regarding the service charges outlined below:
1. He expressed concern at the increase in caretaking costs given that there had been less caretaking because of Covid-19.
2. The communal electricity charge was more than 15 times the estimate and what had previously been charged. He believed that this was incorrect and needed to be investigated.
3. He asked about which day to day repairs were conducted and asked for a breakdown of the repairs he had been charged for.
4. He asked what work had been carried out in relation to fire protection and asked why this was charged to him and not the fire protection fund.
5. He asked why the charge for lifts was so high and what work was done.
6. He asked for a breakdown in relation to costs associated with pest control as he felt it had been charged in error.
7. He asked what he had been charged for under the refuse collection charge.
8. He asked what rooftop safety works were carried out.
9. He asked what the surface pump contract charge was for as it was new.
10. He had not previously been charged for TV aerials and believed that this charge was an error.
11. He expressed concern that the administration fee had tripled and believed this to be an error.
The resident sent several emails pursuing his concerns with the landlord between 8 and 15 October 2021. On 11 October 2021, he asked for a formal complaint to be raised as he had not yet had a response to his enquiries. During this time, he also said that he had received a notification that his direct debit would be increasing. He said that he did not agree to this and maintained that he would not pay the increase until his questions had been answered. He asked that a virtual meeting was arranged with the head of the landlord’s leasehold department due to his dissatisfaction and expressed further dissatisfaction that it had been three weeks since his initial request. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s emails had been passed on to the relevant teams during this period.
The landlord called the resident on 15 October 2021 to discuss his concerns and gain further clarity about his reasons for complaint. The resident maintained that he was dissatisfied with the additional service charge of £626.42 and was not happy to pay this until he received receipts for the breakdown of the service charge. He did not know why the information had not been provided as it had now been 3 weeks. He wanted the charge taken off his service charge account until a breakdown was provided and he was satisfied with the charge. He also wanted answers to the questions raised in his email of 6 October 2021. The landlord advised that it would aim to provide its response within 10 working days and would provide a weekly update.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay in responding to his request to view the 2020-21 invoices under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It explained that this was due to a high amount of correspondence it had received. It explained that facilities for inspection must be provided within 1 month of the request. It advised that the resident’s request entered its queue on 30 September 2021, and it would provide the information by 28 October 2021.
Between 18 and 26 October 2021, the resident continued to pursue his request. He raised concern that the deadline for the landlord to provide the information should be 23 October 2021. During this time, he maintained that he wished to speak to the head of the landlord’s leasehold team. In response, the landlord said that if the resident was dissatisfied with its service, he could raise a complaint and approach this Service if he remained dissatisfied once he had exhausted its procedure rather than the head of its leasehold team. The resident also sought an update during this period and the landlord reiterated that the reason for the delay was due to the amount of correspondence it was currently managing.
The landlord responded to the resident’s section 22 request on 29 October 2021. It provided a spreadsheet of the costs for the block and wider estate and how these had been apportioned to his property. It also provided a significant number of invoices. It explained that it did not have invoices for caretaking, communal cleaning or refuse collection as these services were carried out by its in-house teams and the costs were based on salaries and time spent on site.
The resident initially responded on 29 October 2021 to ask that time sheets were provided for caretaking if invoices were unavailable. On 30 October 2021, the resident said that he did not think that some of the invoices provided applied to his block and needed to be removed as he was not legally obliged to pay the costs. On 1 November 2021, the resident sent the landlord a spreadsheet outlining his concerns related to specific charges. His concerns related to:
1. Management costs associated with block caretaking and how the caretaking cost was established.
2. Charges related to the TV aerial servicing, communal window cleaning, water hygiene management, fire protection, rooftop safety and sewer surface pump services.
3. A communal repair related to lighting in an alleyway and the invoice provided for this.
4. An invoice for work in response to vandalism to the main entrance door of the block.
5. Two separate work orders related to a lock replacement, key cutting and delivering replacement keys to residents which he believed had been charged twice.
6. Incorrect descriptions for work orders related to the main door entry system and his reports that the door entry system had continuing issues.
7. The costs for the communal electricity part of the service charge.
8. Lift contracted costs and why there were two lift contractors.
9. An invoice for pest control that he did not feel applied to the block.
The resident pursued a response to his concerns between 6 and 12 November 2021 on 3 occasions. On 12 November 2021, he also submitted an online review of the landlord’s services and outlined his concerns related to the accuracy of his service charge. His other communication during this time related to the landlord’s delay in responding to his complaint or enquiries. The landlord responded during this period to advise that his emails had been passed on to the relevant teams.
The landlord attempted to call the resident on 15 November 2021 but was not able to speak to him; it left a message advising that his complaint was being investigated but due to the number of charges this was not a quick process. It expected an update on 17 November 2021. The resident outlined that he remained dissatisfied with the delay.
The resident sent a further 3 emails on 17, 18 and 22 November 2021 to request an update and express continued dissatisfaction with the delay. He advised that the matter was becoming upsetting and frustrating. The landlord responded to his emails to advise that his concerns had been passed on internally.
On 23 November 2021, the landlord emailed the resident. It apologised for the delay and confirmed that his complaint had been allocated. It was waiting for a response from its service charge team who were investigating the issues that he had raised. It confirmed that it had escalated this internally.
The landlord responded to the resident’s request for additional information related to his service charges on 26 November 2021. It apologised for the delay and explained that this was due to needing to gain information from different parts of the business. It provided several further invoices alongside an updated spreadsheet with a breakdown of the service charges. In relation to the concerns he had raised, it explained the following:
1. Block caretaking costs related to the time the caretaker, manager and operations manager spent reviewing and managing the block. This cost was spread across the blocks that were managed.
2. The refuse collection costs related to the hire of bins from the local authority or refuse company for the block. It explained that it did not have invoices for caretaking, communal cleaning or refuse collection as this work was carried out by its in-house team. It attached a spreadsheet with the bulk collections completed between April 2020 and March 2021.
3. It provided an invoice for work related to vandalism to the main entrance door.
4. There were 2 jobs related to the lock replacement and then the additional costs to supply keys to each property which explained why it appeared that the job had been charged twice.
5. In relation to the door entry system, it acknowledged that some of the invoices previously provided were incorrect and attached the correct invoices. It also apologised that the entry system was defective, and residents continued to incur costs for its repair. It said that it had referred this to the landlord’s repairs team.
6. It provided its estimate and actual meter readings in relation to the communal electricity.
7. It acknowledged that it had provided an incorrect description for fire protection works and provided the correct description of a fire assessment.
8. There were 2 lift contractors, one provided the monthly service, and one provided the 24 hour call out system.
9. It noted that one job related to installing pigeon spikes on the building had a specific address within the block listed. It explained that contractors usually put an address on the invoice, but the cost had been split among 36 properties in the building.
10. It provided additional invoices for a rooftop safety inspection and sewer surface pump servicing.
11. In relation to the TV aerial servicing contract costs, it confirmed that one invoice would be removed from the 2020-21 actual costs as it did not relate to the resident’s building. It also provided invoices for 2 other jobs that were completed at the building.
12. It confirmed that the windows were cleaned on 8 April 2021 and 20-24 September 2021.
13. It provided an invoice for costs associated with a water hygiene management survey.
The resident responded on the same day and maintained that there were still several issues related to the service charges, including that the charges related to the carpark and communal boiler should be split between all buildings on the estate as these were shared facilities. He advised that the information did not resolve his complaint and asked the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response so that he could escalate matters further. He asked the landlord to provide its stage 1 complaint response again on 29 November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 December 2021 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged its delayed response to the resident’s complaint and apologised.
2. It set out a timeline of events and acknowledged that the resident had first requested a full set of receipts for the finalised accounts on 23 September 2021. He had sent a further email on 6 October 2021 submitting questions that he wanted the service charge team to answer.
3. Its service charge team confirmed on 18 October 2021 that the request had entered the queue on 30 September 2021 and that the documents would be sent by 28 October 2021. The documents were provided on 29 October 2021.
4. It noted that he had raised further questions on 1 November 2021 regarding the invoices supplied which needed to be investigated by the service charge officer handling the resident’s enquiry, who needed to gather information from various departments in order to provide a response. They had provided a response on 26 November 2021, and explained and apologised for the delay.
5. The landlord acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication and a delayed response. It offered £100 compensation, comprised of £50 for its delayed complaint response and £50 for the inconvenience caused.
The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure on 6 December 2021 and explained the following:
1. He was dissatisfied with the poor service he received from the landlord in relation to both complaint handling and information requests. He believed that this was a pattern with no lessons learnt as the same issues kept happening. He asked why the timeframes for responses were still slow.
2. He had not received a response to the questions he had asked its service charge team (on 6 October 2021).
3. He said that the sewer service pump was for all buildings and not just his building, but that residents in his building were being charged the entire cost. He asked that this was reviewed.
4. He noted that netting had been installed in the car park and that the car park was communal for all residents on the estate. He asked that the landlord review why it had charged the entire cost associated with the work to his building.
5. He asked why the service charges were not overseen and continued to remain inaccurate. He did not feel that he should need to review the service charge line by line as this was the landlord’s responsibility. He was dissatisfied with the inaccuracies identified and said that matter was draining, stressful and impacting his mental health. He asked that the service charges were reviewed.
6. He also added additional points to the spreadsheet previously provided. These were in relation to:
  1. Management costs related to block caretaking which he believed formed part of the administration fee.
  2. A charge related to lighting in a communal alleyway, which he did not believe formed part of his building.
  3. An invoice of a significant amount related to vandalism to the main entrance door. He noted that the invoice did not show the specific cost for this work.
  4. Charges for 2 separate jobs to replace a lock and supply keys to each property which he believed should have been one job.
  5. A charge involving work to the communal entrance door. The resident noted that this took an hour which he did not feel was accurate.
  6. The communal electricity charge was £70. He felt that this was inaccurate as his personal monthly use came to £20. He asked the landlord to review this and confirm there was no additional administration fee.
  7. A charge for a fire risk assessment. He believed that this was the landlord’s responsibility to complete and asked where in the lease it stated that this could be recharged to residents.
  8. He queried why there were 2 contractors for the lifts and queried whether it would not be more cost effective to have a single contractor.
  9. He believed that charges related to pigeon spikes should also apply to another building attached to his block.
  10. He asked what the charge linked to a roof safety inspection related to and whether this took into account the size of each roof.
  11. He sought additional information related to the window cleaning as the landlord had referred to works undertaken in April and September 2021. He also did not believe that the windows were cleaned during the pandemic.
  12. He queried how the water hygiene management costs were apportioned as there was 1 system for all buildings.
  13. In relation to the TV aerial, he believed that there was a single aerial for all buildings and said that the invoices did not reference his building.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate his complaint on 7 December 2021 and confirmed that it would be in touch within 10 working days.
The evidence provided shows that the resident pursued an update on 17 December 2021 and 20 December 2021. On 21 December 2021, the landlord apologised that the resident had not heard back yet and advised that it had passed his concerns to its complaints team. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated to the head of customer services as he was dissatisfied with the ongoing poor complaint handling and customer service.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord advised the resident that the complaint had been passed for review. It apologised for the delay and said it would aim to issue its response by 24 January 2022.
On 18 January 22, the landlord informed the resident that its response would take longer than expected. It had coordinated enquiries with different business areas to consider the comments the resident had made within the spreadsheet. It hoped to issue a response by 1 February 2022.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord advised that it would need to extend its response date further as there were still a number of outstanding items and it was waiting for a response. It had escalated its requests to senior management level and said it would provide an update the following week. The resident responded and expressed concern about how long it was taking to respond to his initial request for information.
On 3 February 2022, the landlord confirmed that it had made progress with its complaint response but was awaiting a response to some of the resident’s queries. It acknowledged that its response was overdue and apologised for the delay. It advised that it was hoping to finalise the response by the end of the next week and would keep the resident updated. The resident responded and reiterated his concern that it should not take this long to provide the information as this should be easily identifiable if he had been billed. He suggested having a meeting with the complaint handler and relevant teams.
On 11 February 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a meeting. It explained that this was not something it would usually offer through its complaints process but that it would make the relevant service areas aware of his request. It acknowledged the frustration caused by the delays in its response and confirmed it was reviewing his case on a daily basis. It aimed to provide its response by 18 February 2022. The resident responded and maintained his previous concern. He added that he did not feel he should be liable for the charges given how long the process had taken and that no one seemed to be certain as to whether the charges were correct.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 18 February 2022 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that on 30 November 2021, the resident had disputed items from the service charge breakdown provided on 26 November 2021 in response to his follow-up questions to the section 22 consultation and a breakdown of the service charge costs for 2020-21. At this point, its stage 1 complaint response was in progress. Due to the timing of the resident’s response on 30 November 2021, his additional queries were not addressed within its initial complaint response on 1 December 2021. It explained that this had contributed to the delays in providing its response.
2. It acknowledged that the communications between its customer solutions and service charge teams could have been improved. It believed that some confusion was also caused by incoming emails to both teams from the resident which concerned both the subject of the complaint and active service charge queries.
3. In relation to the block caretaking, it confirmed that the cost was divided by the 36 properties within the block by floor area. The costs for this service were separate from the administration fee it charged. It included a document detailing the visits for 2020-21 and explained that the administration fee of 15% was charged on the total cost of services to communal service charges. It explained that this covered costs for obtaining and managing the service and the cost of preparing and reconciling the service charge account.
4. In relation to the day to day repair queries, it noted that the resident had commented on a repair item related to an emergency call-out for a light in an alleyway and that he did not believe that the alleyway related to his block. The landlord confirmed that the alleyway cost should have been charged to the entire estate. As this would be a minimal cost to the resident, it said it would remove the cost. It confirmed that £0.83 had been credited to the resident’s service charge account (£0.72 + £0.11 admin fee).
5. In relation to the urgent repair following vandalism to the main entry door lock and dry riser inlet, it noted that the resident had queried the invoice for £112,000. It explained that the invoice provided related to all repairs carried out by its repairs contractor in the region in July 2020 and that a spreadsheet accompanied the invoice with a breakdown of all jobs. The applicable cost of the repair job carried out at the block was £688.38. This was equally split between 36 units and the total cost to the resident was £19.12.
6. In relation to the repair item linked to key-cutting, it noted that the resident had questioned why this was listed as two items and wanted the charges waived for the second item as it should have been 1 repair job. The landlord agreed with this and said that the repair was itemised incorrectly as two separate charges. It had credited £6.95 to the resident’s account (£6.04 + 15% admin fee).
7. It noted that the resident had queried the cost for the door entry service contract. It confirmed that it had checked the charges with its surveyor and confirmed that they were legitimate. 2 items were call outs and one was a fire risk assessment check. This was split between the 36 units by floor area.
8. In relation to communal electricity, it had reviewed the electricity charge and found that some costs were linked to another block. It provided a revised breakdown of costs related to the resident’s block only. It confirmed that it had credited £45.54 to the resident’s account. (£39.60 + £5.94 admin fee).
9. In relation to the Fire Protection charge, it had reviewed the head lease for the building which said that the onus was placed on tenants to ensure fire requirements were put in place in line with insurance obligations. It divided this cost between 48 properties. It provided a photo of the relevant section of the headlease.
10. In relation to the resident’s concerns about 2 lift contractors on the service charge breakdown, it explained that this was not because there were different contractors for 24 hour call outs and monthly servicing. It explained that it had a lift contractor for maintenance and servicing until July 2020. It had then carried out a procurement exercise for the lift contracts and included a section 20 to residents. The new contract commenced on 1 August 2021 with a new contractor responsible for maintenance and servicing. It confirmed that the lift was serviced during this period.
11. In relation to pest control, it noted that the resident had raised concern that the cost related to the pigeon deterrents were linked to the communal carpark and the carpark belonging to a supermarket. He had raised additional concern that this should have been charged to the estate rather than residents in his building. The landlord confirmed that this was for the communal carpark and not the supermarket carpark. It confirmed that the cost should have been split between all units on the estate. It had reduced the resident’s share from £141.77 to £25.65 and credited £133.53 to his account (including the £17.42 admin fee).
12. It noted that the resident had raised concern that pest proofing works should have also been charged to a linked building on the estate. The landlord confirmed that works were carried out to the roof of the resident’s building and split equally between the 36 units.
13. In relation to rooftop safety, it explained that its contractor charged a set rate for servicing and inspecting properties and were selected as they offered good value and experience. As part of an annual inspection, they carried out checks to ensure the safety of anyone working at height on the property. The cost was divided by 36 properties by floor area.
14. In relation to the sewage surface pump, it confirmed that this was an estate charge and that this had now been apportioned correctly. The resident’s share of the cost had been reduced and £59.56 had been credited back to him, including the admin fee.
15. In relation to the TV aerial servicing charge, it explained that it had received costs for other blocks but could not confirm if there was a single aerial for all buildings. It said it would need to send its contractor to confirm the set up of the aerial. It was unable to confirm whether the charge was in relation to only the resident’s block and agreed to remove £24.90 (including the admin fee) from the resident’s account.
16. In relation to the communal window cleaning, it confirmed that in 2019-20 the windows were subject to 6 monthly cleans which took place on 11 April and 18 October 2019, prior to the Covid-19 pandemic. This was apportioned to 48 units in the building.
17. It noted that the resident had disputed costs related to water hygiene management. The landlord explained that it had completed a single visit on 10 February 2020 to ensure that it complied with regulations. This was to ensure that there had been no significant changes to the water system that could pose a risk to residents. The building would now be excluded from the annual water hygiene programme unless there were any significant changes in the future. This charge was split between the 36 properties by floor area.
18. The landlord confirmed that £137.78 (£0.83 + £6.95 + £45.54 + £59.56 + £24.90) had been credited to the resident’s account. It apologised for the time taken to provide its response. It advised that the information should have been more readily available and said that improvements to the determination of service charges was a key area of focus as part of ongoing department reviews. It said that it had updated its service charge system following a review of the resident’s costs to ensure that future costs were apportioned correctly. It offered an additional £100 compensation comprised of £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response and £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
The resident responded on the same day. He asked whether other residents would also be receiving a refund for the incorrectly charged items and asked for a meeting with the person responsible for responding to his complaint. He advised that he would be approaching this Service as he was dissatisfied with many of the responses and his request for a full and thorough review of the service charges. The number of errors made him question the accuracy of other charges. He added concern that the caretaker had attended 157 times during the pandemic and did not feel that this was accurate. He also expressed concern that he was charged for the cleaner’s manager alongside a 15% management fee. He suggested that the landlord approached a forensic accountant for further review. The landlord confirmed that it would pass his concerns to the relevant teams for response.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service via his MP in February 2022 as he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. He advised that throughout its response letter, the landlord had agreed to refund him £271 but the summary of costs provided was lower. He advised that the landlord did not appear to understand that his building comprised of 2 blocks and that many of the charges for the building were only passed to his block. He was dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of £100 compensation and was with the length of time his questions had gone unanswered as he believed that this information should be readily available. He was also dissatisfied that his request for a review of the service charges by a forensic accountant was ignored.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord confirmed that the referenced amount of £137.78 within its complaint response was incorrect and should have read £271.31 (£0.83 + £6.95 + £45.54 + £133.53 + £59.56 + £24.90). It apologised for the error.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about his service charges and its handling of the associated complaint.

In this case, it is not disputed that the resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing his enquiries about his service charge. The landlord has acknowledged failures including delays and poor communication. It offered £100 compensation for this aspect of the resident’s complaint in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to him.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is evident that there were delays in both the landlord’s communication with the resident and its responses to the resident’s enquiries. Following the resident’s initial request on 23 September 2021 under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord provided the relevant information on 29 October 2021, around 6 days outside of the statutory timescales in which to respond to section 22 requests. In addition, it failed to fully respond to the specific questions the resident had raised on 6 October 2021 about the service charges at this time. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to investigate and identify errors in its calculations.
While the landlord acted reasonably by explaining that there would be a delay due to the amount of correspondence it was handling at the time and apologising, it did not provide this update until 18 October 2021, following the resident’s formal complaint on 11 October 2021, and it is evident that the resident needed to spend an unreasonable amount of time and trouble pursuing this. In addition, despite advising that it would provide the information on 28 October 2021 within its correspondence on 18 October 2021, it did not provide this until 29 October 2021. While this was 1 day outside of its expected response date, it was likely to cause frustration to the resident who had been chasing a response.
Following receipt of the initial invoices and receipts on 29 October 2021, the resident raised additional enquiries about several elements of the charge on 1 November 2021. The landlord responded to his concerns on 26 November 2021. While the Ombudsman has been unable to establish the landlord’s timescale for responding to service charge queries, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay at this stage and acted fairly by apologising for its delayed response and errors in the initial information provided. However, it would have been appropriate for it to have satisfactorily managed the resident’s expectations of the date he could expect to receive a response from the outset, to avoid any unnecessary time and trouble spent by the resident in chasing the information.
The resident raised additional concerns about the accuracy of the service charges on 26 November 2021 and within his complaint escalation request on 6 December 2021. The landlord did not respond to his concerns until 18 February 2022, around 2 months later. While it is understandable that matters involving the calculation of service charges can be labour intensive, the delays and lack of communication in this case were unreasonable. There were missed opportunities for the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns at an earlier stage following his email on 6 October 2021. Many of his queries, including that the communal electricity bill was higher than the estimate and what had been charged in previous years, concerns related to the fire protection costs, and questions about what the rooftop safety works consisted of were not responded to until the landlord’s response on 18 February 2022, approximately 4 months later.
Some of the information and invoices provided to the resident were likely to cause confusion as it remains unclear how some of the information offered related to the costs incurred in the 2020-2021 financial year (April 2020 – March 2021). For example, the landlord initially advised within its response to the resident on 26 November 2021 that the windows were cleaned on 8 April 2021 and between 20-24 September 2021. The resident raised concern that this information was irrelevant. While the landlord provided an invoice for window cleaning undertaken in March 2021, it failed to provide any further clarity or details of window cleaning undertaken in 2020-21, explain why the other dates provided were relevant to the service charge period in question or acknowledge any errors.
In addition, the landlord explained that the visit in relation to the water hygiene management visit took place on 10 February 2020 to ensure that there had been no significant changes and that the building would be excluded from the annual programme in the future unless there were any changes. While the landlord’s explanation was reasonable, it would have been appropriate for it to provide clarity on why the cost, which was invoiced on 29 February 2020, was relevant to the costs incurred between 1 April 2020 and 31 March 2021 (and the service charge period in question) rather than the prior 2019-20 period.
While the landlord acknowledged that there were errors in its service charge calculations and took steps to put things right by confirming that it would credit the amounts to the resident’s account, it failed to fully acknowledge the level of involvement by the resident in seeking corrections of its mistakes. It failed to acknowledge that it had previously provided incorrect information or consider the information it had provided.
Following his complaint, the resident asked that the service charges were reviewed by a forensic accountant. It remains unclear as to whether the landlord confirmed its position or carried out any further review of the 2020-21 charges following the complaint to ensure that they were accurate. In addition, the landlord took reasonable steps to acknowledge the calculation error within its final response following the complaint on 18 March 2022 and apologise to the resident.
However, despite the Ombudsman asking for confirmation of the total amount credited to the resident’s account on 2 August 2023, the landlord has not confirmed whether the correct amount has been credited. In view of the above, the landlord is to confirm the total amount credited to the resident’s service charge account as a result of the complaint and whether any further errors were identified following the complaint. It should also confirm its position in relation to the resident’s request for the accounts to be assessed by an accountant to ensure that they are accurate.
The landlord acted fairly within its stage 2 complaint response by acknowledging that the information the resident had requested should have been more readily available. It demonstrated that it had taken points of learning from the complaint by confirming that the determination of service charges was a clear area of focus as part of its departmental reviews.
In terms of its handling of the resident’s complaint, the resident initially asked for a complaint to be raised on 11 October 2021. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 1 December 2021, approximately 37 working days later and outside of its policy timescales. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated on 6 December 2021; this was not formally acknowledged until 22 December 2021 and the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 February 2022, which was significantly outside of its policy timescales. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay at both stages within its responses and offered a total of £100 compensation.
Where there are likely to be delays in responding to a complaint, the landlord would be expected to provide updates to the resident, explain the reasons for any delay and provide a new response timeframe. There is limited evidence to suggest that the resident’s expectations of when he would receive the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response were successfully managed. This was likely to cause inconvenience to the resident who evidently needed to spend time and trouble pursuing a complaint response in addition to his requests for information about his service charges.
In addition, while the landlord acknowledged delays and poor communication within its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to address his request that the increased service charge was removed from his account until he had reviewed the invoices and was satisfied with the charge. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have confirmed its position in order to resolve the complaint more fully.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response also failed to assess or identify whether a response had been provided to each of the queries the resident had raised on 6 October 2021. This was a missed opportunity to address the resident’s concerns and take steps to identify errors at an earlier stage. The resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing his request for answers to his email of 6 October 2021 as a result. Despite acknowledging failings, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had taken practical points of learning from the complaint in relation to its communication failings at this stage or explain the steps it would take to prevent any ongoing or similar failings in future.
The evidence shows that the landlord took steps to update the resident on the progress of his stage 2 complaint on a number of occasions occasions following his initial request on 6 December 2021, which was appropriate albeit the number of holding responses was likely to have caused frustration for the resident and it was reasonable for the landlord to acknowledge the delay within its response.
It is noted that in his communication with the landlord that the resident advised that he intended to invoice the landlord for his time pursuing his concerns. The Ombudsman recognises that any resident pursuing a complaint with their landlord will incur a certain amount of time, trouble and minor costs (such as phone calls). We would not usually order a landlord to compensate residents for their time and trouble in raising concerns or making a complaint in these circumstances. However, a remedy of financial compensation may be appropriate if the Ombudsman finds that the time and trouble incurred by the resident in seeking to resolve their complaint was significantly more than would be reasonably expected due to a landlord’s poor communication or complaint handling.
Given the failings identified above, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble, inconvenience and complaint handling delays is considered disproportionately low in view of the impact on the resident in this case. The landlord’s compensation policy states that amounts of £250 and above may be used in cases where a resident needs to repeatedly chase responses and seek correction of mistakes. These circumstances apply in this case. As such, the landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation as set out below to bring the overall figure in line with this range.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for information about his service charges and its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of £200 compensation is disproportionately low given the overall time, trouble and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its delays and communication failures in this case. It failed to fully acknowledge the inconvenience caused by providing incorrect information to the resident in relation to his service charges or the level of involvement required by him in seeking correction of its service charge calculation mistakes.

Orders

Within four weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Pay the resident £150 compensation (in addition to its previous offer of £200), in recognition of the impact on him as a result of the failings identified above.
2. Write to the resident to:
  1. Apologise for the failings identified within the report.
  2. Confirm the total amount credited to his service charge account following the complaint and confirm the date that this was paid. It should ensure that this amounts to £271.31 as detailed in its correction email on 18 March 2022.
  3. Confirm its position in relation to whether there is a single TV aerial for all buildings and how the TV aerial servicing contract is apportioned to properties on the estate.
  4. Explain why the water hygiene management costs applied to the 2020-2021 financial year rather than the earlier service charge period.
  5. Explain its position in relation to the resident’s request for its accounts for the 2020-21 period to be assessed by a forensic accountant for accuracy.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that:
1. The landlord confirms its service level agreement timescales for responding to service charge enquiries.
2. The landlord carries out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that residents are provided with updates where there is likely to be a delay and that points of learning from a complaint are established and logged.