Harlow District Council (202211247)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211247

Harlow District Council

01 March 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

1. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to remove charges for repair works for leaks from the resident’s service charges.
   2. The landlord’s administration of the service charge account.
   3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Jurisdiction

2. 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, it is determined that the following aspect of the complaint, as set out above, is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme:
   1. The landlord’s decision not to remove charges for repair works for leaks from the resident’s service charges.
4. Paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. 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 may wish to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with a case. Therefore a determination will not be made on the landlord’s decision not to remove charges for leak repairs from the service; however, some detail about this will be included to add context to the complaints under investigation.

Scope of investigation

5. The resident’s stage two complaint escalation request included reference to a different complaint which he wanted to be considered at the final stage of the landlord’s procedure. In the landlord’s stage two complaint response it clarified that this had been closed due to a lack of contact from the resident. As there was no evidence that this complaint had exhausted its complaints procedure, this will not be considered in this investigation.

Background

6. The resident is a leaseholder who occupies a flat within a block (the property).
7. The resident contacted the landlord on 2 October 2021 to query charges on his service charge account. He highlighted that recent major works had been completed to the windows, the roof and the water tanks and contended that any leaks could only have come from these. The resident said that these leaks should therefore have been covered under warranty and should not be applied to the service charge.
8. The resident raised a stage one complaint with the landlord on 4 March 2022 about the delay in receiving a response to his enquiry on 2 October 2021. It provided its stage one complaint response to him on 22 March 2022 which clarified that major works were completed to the roof and the water tank room, but not to the water tanks themselves. It confirmed that the leak repairs would therefore remain charged to the service charge as they were separate repairs and part of its repairs and maintenance service. The landlord upheld the complaint on the basis of its late response to the resident’s enquiry.
9. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord on 9 April 2022 by email in which he contended that leaks should not have occurred if the major works had been completed correctly. He asked it to provide exact details of the work to evidence why it considered the repairs chargeable to residents. It provided its stage two complaint response to him on 26 April 2022 in which it explained that the leaks originated from pipes in close proximity to the areas handled by the major works. Therefore, it maintained that the service charges for these repairs would remain.
10. The resident informed the Ombudsman on 25 August 2022 that he continued to be dissatisfied as he considered that the leaks which had been charged to the service charge account should be removed. He maintained that the major works previously carried out should have prevented these leaks and any subsequent leaks should have been covered under warranty.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s administration of the service charge account

11. The landlord’s lease agreement with the resident confirms that it shall supply, on request, a written summary of the costs it incurred and their contribution to the service charge. Its leaseholder handbook states that it will provide information and advice on leasehold matters, and letters and emails will be responded to within ten working days. If the landlord is unable to respond within this time it should provide a timescale for a full reply and write again to explain if it cannot meet this new timescale.
12. It was not disputed that the resident made his enquiry to the landlord on 2 October 2021. It did not provide a response to this enquiry until 22 March 2022 in its stage one complaint response. This was an excessive and unreasonable delay of approximately five months in answering his query, and this timeframe was not in accordance with its leaseholder handbook above.
13. If a landlord requires more time to investigate an issue, it should provide regular updates to the resident to manage their expectations; this is reflected in the leaseholder handbook, above. There was no evidence of the landlord providing any updates to the resident.
14. Due to the lack of response from the landlord, it was necessary for the resident to raise a formal complaint about this to prompt a reply. This incurred additional time, trouble and inconvenience for him. The landlord’s lack of response to state its position on the service charge also prevented the resident from seeking alternate means to resolve the disputed charges, thereby delaying the overall resolution of the matter.
15. Considering the length of the delay, and lack of communication from the landlord, its acknowledgement and apology for the delay was not a reasonable response. This is particularly as it gave no explanation of why it had taken so long in answering his query, which was likely to have led to further frustration for the resident.
16. Therefore, the landlord should pay compensation to the resident of £100 to recognise the time and trouble taken by the resident to seek an answer from the landlord, and his distress and inconvenience experienced while awaiting a response. The award of compensation is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which provide for awards of between £100 and £600 for failures which had an adverse effect on the resident, which the landlord did not appropriately put right, but which may not have had a permanent effect on him.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

17. The landlord’s complaints policy, as published on its website, provides for a two-stage internal complaints procedure. At stage one of this procedure, it should provide its response to the resident within ten working days; at the final stage it should respond within 15 working days. This policy states that when the landlord is unable to meet these timeframes it should write to the resident to explain why.
18. The resident raised his stage one complaint with the landlord on 4 March 2022 and, in accordance with its policy above, it should have provided its response to him by 18 March 2022. It emailed him on 21 March 2022 to apologise for the delay and provided its stage one response the following day. This was 12 working days after the resident raised his complaint and was not excessive of the timeframe specified in its policy above. The landlord issued its final response to him in nine working days, in accordance with its policy.
19. The landlord’s delay in responding to the resident at stage one was not excessive. However, this did represent a failure to respond in accordance with policy, and coupled with its excessive delay discussed above, prolonged the resolution of the complaint. It is noted that it wrote to him to explain that the complaint was still under investigation, however this was on 21 March 2022, after the stage one response was already due.
20. There was no evidence that this delay led to any significant further detriment to the resident, or that the delay significantly affected the outcome for him. Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s decision not to remove charges for repair works for leaks from the resident’s service charges is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
22. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its administration of the service charge account.
23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

24. The landlord should:
    1. Pay the resident compensation of £100.
    2. Confirm to the Ombudsman within four weeks that it has complied with the above orders.