Gloucester City Homes Limited (202007410)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007410

Gloucester City Homes

27 April 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 landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about:
    1. handling of outstanding repairs to the heating and hot water system.
    2. level of cleaning and maintenance in the communal areas.
    3. administration of service charges and requests for information relating to costs.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
    1. the handling of outstanding repairs to the heating and hot water system.
  3. Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.”
  4. On 2 February 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response to the resident’s complaint about outstanding repairs to the heating and hot water system. While a boiler issue was raised during the landlord’s response to the complaint about administration of service charges, there is no evidence the substantive complaint has been escalated through its complaints procedure. The landlord has therefore not had the opportunity to fully respond to this complaint and, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it is not a matter that has exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. As such it is not a matter this Service can investigate.
  5. In regards to reports about cleaning and maintenance, it is evident that after the resident completed the landlord’s complaints procedure on 14 October 2020, she reported further issues and on 3 December 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response to these. As this further complaint has not been escalated through the complaints procedure and the landlord has not had the opportunity to fully respond, this report will focus on the timeframe between May 2020, when it is recorded the resident reported concern about cleaning and maintenance, and 14 October 2020, when the landlord issued its final complaint response.
  6. The complaint about the administration of service charges is within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is considered below.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, an housing association. The property is a first floor flat in a block. The tenancy commenced in 2013.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out a tenant’s obligation to pay in advance rent and service charges. The agreement allows for changes in rent and increase in service charges, and gives tenants the right to examine the service charge accounts, receipts and other documents relating to them. The agreement explains that if it is believed the service charge is unreasonable because of the amount charged or standard of work, tenants can apply to the First-Tier Tribunal.
  3. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints procedure. At stages one and two, it aimed to respond within ten working days. At its final stage, it aimed for customers to meet with an appeals panel within 28 working days and to then issue a written decision within five working days. The landlord advises that where it is unable to meet these timeframes it will confirm that a reasonable extension for the complaint response is required.

Summary of events

  1. According to the landlord’s records, between May and July 2020 the resident raised concern about lack of block cleaning in March/April 2020; grass cutting/communal maintenance; a bath panel being broken during a leak repair; damp; and the service charge/rent being paid. She reported nothing had been done after issues had been discussed with her housing officer. Following this, according to the landlord’s records it discussed the concerns internally and with the resident on a number of occasions, although further details are not available.
  2. On 8 July 2020 the resident contacted the landlord and explained she did not want to pay the service charge due to concerns that included repairs; uncut grass; cleaning; and lack of improvements and modernisation to the block. The same day, the landlord confirmed to her that it had raised a complaint and that it aimed to respond within ten working days.
  3. On 29 July 2020 the landlord issued its stage one response.
    1. It confirmed it inspected communal areas with the resident to review the quality of services provided as part of the service charge.
    2. It provided explanation about the resident’s weekly service charge of £27.13 and its constituent elements.
    3. It found grass areas to be in good order and confirmed these would be monitored to ensure a good standard was maintained.
    4. It found that estate services in relation to communal upkeep were being carried out.
    5. It identified room for improvement in respect of cleaning. It confirmed that after specific issues were raised to the responsible contractor, the contractor carried out their own visit and subsequently raised these with staff.
    6. It concluded by acknowledging there were cleaning issues with the block which would be brought to expected standards through the action taken in addition to weekly monitoring by contractors.
  4. On 3 August 2020 the resident called the landlord to escalate the complaint, because she had requested invoices and receipts for block spending, which had not been provided. Following this, the resident corresponded with the landlord via email and provided photos and videos regarding concerns about a suspected rat infestation, cleaning and garden maintenance. She also raised a delay in repair of water ingress, where she advised the landlord missed two appointments in October 2019 and she missed one appointment during the festive period, following which repairs were carried out in February 2020 after an inspection in January 2020.
  5. On 26 August 2020 the landlord issued its stage two response.
    1. It confirmed it visited the resident again as part of its investigation, where it explained it had provided evidence about disputed service charges such as lift servicing. It apologised if the information did not meet the resident’s expectations about costings, and explained its intention had been to show disputed services were carried out.
    2. It acknowledged a claim that a communal area had not been cleaned for five weeks during Covid lockdown, and offered to compensate one missed week based on information from contractors.
    3. It acknowledged a concern that fly tipping had resulted in an increased charge. It advised this would be looked into and it would enquire if CCTV could be installed. It also asked the resident to provide any evidence of fly tipping so the matter could be pursued.
    4. It acknowledged that at the visit concerns were raised about a possible rodent infestation, and confirmed these were being addressed through a programme of pest control and carrying out of recommended drainage works.
    5. It acknowledged the resident’s desire to further escalate the complaint and confirmed it had arranged this.
  6. The same day, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm it was arranging a stage three complaint panel. Following this, the landlord and resident exchanged emails to agree a mutually convenient date, and on 2 October 2020 the appeal panel met with the resident.
    1. According to minutes, the resident raised concerns about customer service and how she had been treated by staff.
    2. She explained her main complaint related to service charges and that during her tenancy she did not believe she had received the services to justify the amount. She raised concerns about lack of major refurbishment works and communal costs for which a substandard service was provided.
    3. She requested to receive a breakdown of what the service charge was used for and receipts/invoices to evidence this. She disputed all her service charge contribution had been spent on the properties and explained her desired outcome was to receive back some of the £8,000 paid during her tenancy.
    4. She raised additional issues including damp, mould, a boiler, a communal fence and no complaint response having been within service timeframes.
    5. The landlord provided initial explanation that the way in which service charges work is set out by legislation, and if there is an overpayment, this is subsidised against next year’s charges.
  7. On 14 October 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the resident’s complaint about service charges, after the panel discussed the complaint.
    1. It apologised for the experience the resident had and stress and upset caused.
    2. It explained that the service charge was estimated based on previous years’ costs and anticipated costs, and it was satisfied service charges had been accurately calculated and in line with breakdowns provided.
    3. It explained that it was not possible to provide all information/receipts relating solely to her property. It explained that many of the costs were based on contracts and distributed across all the landlord’s flats and communal areas, and some were based on landlord staff hourly rates and materials. It confirmed that service charge information would be supplied where possible.
    4. It advised the matter had highlighted it could improve information to customers about how service charges were calculated. It advised this was an area that would be recommended for a further review and encouraged the resident to participate in this.
    5. It acknowledged concern about complaint response timeframes and explained that extensions had been agreed with the resident and been met.
    6. It provided explanation about actions taken in regard to the resident’s boiler, a fence and removal of a tree.
    7. It offered £100 compensation for inconvenience it recognised the resident had experienced in relation to service for damp, mould and bath panel repairs.
  8. On 16 October 2020 the landlord advises it sent information to the resident. This included:
    1. the tenancy agreement.
    2. explanation about calculation of the 2020/21 service charges.
    3. invoices/receipts in relation to lift servicing and fire safety.
    4. a spreadsheet listing lift, electrics, fire, security and in house repair costs.
    5. a spreadsheet listing communal electricity consumption and costs.
    6. a spreadsheet listing cleaning costs across all the landlord’s blocks.
  9. The resident subsequently advises that the landlord has failed to clarify what service charge payments are for to clarify if she is getting value for money. She reports that the service charge is meant to go towards cleaning and maintenance of communal areas however this has not occurred. She raises concern about the failure of the landlord to address the aesthetic of the estate and damp in some areas. She advises she wanted to know if she is owed money and she wanted the landlord to refund any monies for services not rendered.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are limited by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), which sets out the type of complaints which the Ombudsman will and may not investigate.
  2. Paragraph 39(g) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when.
  3. It is therefore not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to decide on matters such as service charges in the same way as the courts, including if they are value for money. However it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
  4. As part of the tenancy agreement, a tenant pays a service charge for communal services, so when concern was raised about the delivery of these services, the landlord had a responsibility to review the concerns. It is not disputed that the landlord carried out visits to inspect the quality of the delivery of communal services, which demonstrates it accepted this responsibility. Having reviewed services, it concluded and explained that most services were being delivered satisfactorily apart from cleaning. Consequently, this was discussed with the contractor responsible and the resident was offered a refund for a short period where it established cleaning was not done.
  5. As part of the tenancy agreement, a tenant has the right to examine the service charge accounts, receipts and other documents relating to them, so when such information was requested the landlord had a responsibility to take steps to facilitate this. It is not disputed that the landlord initially showed the resident information about specific disputed services and then sent her wider information and explanation relating to service charge accounts. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, it also explained how any overpayments were adjusted in future service charges rather than refunded immediately.
  6. In this case, the landlord reached conclusions about quality of service being paid for based on first hand inspection by members of staff, whose opinion the landlord is entitled to rely on, and took appropriate steps to arrange improvement of acknowledged shortfalls in service. The landlord met its obligation in the tenancy agreement to provide information relating to service charges. The landlord reviewed and responded to the resident’s concerns about service charges at each stage of its complaints procedure and provided detailed explanation and position, although it is good practice to include a reminder of the right to apply to the Tribunal when service charges are disputed. The landlord also set out reasonable responses to additional service issues the resident raised at different stages of the complaint.
  7. The resident experienced delays at each stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure of approximately five working days; seven working days; and ten working days. This Service recognises that the final response was impacted by the logistics of coordinating the appeal panel and that Covid-19 has had an impact on landlord resources and services. This Service also notes the landlord’s complaints policy allows for reasonable extensions, and its final response explained agreed extensions were met, which has not been disputed. Accordingly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the delays in the landlord’s responses to the complaint were not significantly unreasonable.
  8. The above demonstrates that, considering all of the circumstances of the case, the landlord has responded to the resident’s concerns in a reasonable way, and in accordance with what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
  9. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the level of service charge she is required to pay, only a legal procedure (the Tribunal) can offer a definitive and legally binding decision on the appropriate level and amount of service charge, as explained above.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about level of cleaning and maintenance in the communal areas.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s reports about administration of service charges and requests for information relating to costs.

Reasons

  1. The landlord took appropriate steps to inspect communal services, to arrange improvements in service where it identified this was necessary, and to offer refund where it found service not up to standard.
  2. The landlord took appropriate steps to review service charge concerns and to provide a reasonable position in accordance with the tenancy agreement and good practice. The landlord met its obligations in the tenancy agreement to provide information in relation to service charge costs it incurred.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to consider inclusion of information about a customer’s right to apply to the First-Tier Tribunal when responding to service charge disputes.