Housing For Women (202113495)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113495

Housing For Women

15 November 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 service charge enquiries.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in 2015. The property is a ground floor flat in a block containing 12 flats. Residents of the block share use of a private communal garden with other neighbouring properties; access to the garden is managed by a committee which requires a refundable deposit in exchange for a key. The resident has a number of mental health conditions known to the landlord, including obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).
The landlord’s rent and service charge policy has 5 stated purposes, one of which is to “ensure that service charges are appropriate and engender good value for money for our customers”. The policy goes on to state that service charges are set in line with tenancy agreements, and that the landlord will consider the costs to the customer and legislative requirements alongside value for money when setting service charges. For fixed service charges, it has a responsibility to ensure that the customer pays no more than the costs incurred. The landlord will review the costs incurred against the revenue received every 5 years, and undertake a procurement review of the services being delivered every 3 years.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Its complaints policy states that it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, provide its stage 1 response within 10 working days, and provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. If it is not able to respond within these timeframes, it will contact the complainant to provide an explanation and a revised response date. Stage 2 complaint reviews may be carried out by an executive director or a complaint panel. Complaint panels comprise members of the landlord’s executive team and/or board of trustees, and may also include a technical specialist.
The landlord’s compensation and reimbursement policy distinguishes between compensation (“something, typically money, awarded to someone to make amends or in recognition of a failure in delivery of service”), reimbursement (“repayment for an actual expense or loss incurred”) and goodwill gestures (a discretionary payment which “may be given where we decide there is a shortfall in the level of service, or the action/inaction is not in line with our service standards”, including where it has financially disadvantaged a customer). Examples of situations in which discretionary compensation may be paid include poor complaint handling, delays in providing a service, failure to provide a service that has been charged for, failure to meet target response times, and unreasonable time taken to resolve a situation.
The compensation policy states that the level of compensation awarded will reflect the level of inconvenience, disturbance or annoyance suffered, and the extent to which the landlord is responsible. The policy sets out a tariff for calculating awards according to the level of impact: up to £100 for minor impact; £51 to £500 for moderate impact; and £501 to £1,500 for severe impact. Compensation methods include a letter of apology, flowers and gifts, shopping vouchers, bank transfers, a rent free period, and payment of any arrears.

Summary of events

In September 2021 the resident contacted this Service as she was unhappy that the landlord had increased her rent by £15 per month and her service charge by £16 per month. She felt the rent increase represented 4 years’ worth of increases, which were applied all at once due to a cap that was previously in place. She also said that she was not receiving some of the services included in her service charge, and that other services were of a poor quality. She suspected that the increases were to cover the costs of an empty flat that the landlord could not let as it had suffered leak damage. The resident confirmed that she had already contacted the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber), which deals with disputes relating to rent and service charge amounts and increases, but said she wished the Ombudsman to intervene as well.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2021 and asked it to provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident within 10 working days. The landlord then sent a letter to the resident on 4 October 2021, stating that:
1. The communal gardening aspect of the service charge related to activities carried out by its contractor, namely: weed control, treatment of hard surfaces in cold weather, maintenance of front and rear paths and external paved/concreted areas, and removal of leaf fall, blossom and animal fouling.
2. The service charge for communal water related to its contractor’s use of water in cleaning the property.
3. The service charge for pest control was based on the number and cost of activities carried out to deal with such matters in the previous year.
4. The annual service charge was based on an estimate or budget it produced each year to cover the running costs of all communal areas.
On 16 October 2021 the resident informed this Service that she remained unhappy with the service charge increase for the following reasons:
1. The landlord had provided no proof of the costs it claimed should be included in the service charge, such as invoices and tenders.
2. She felt its letter was inaccurate and “full of misinformation”.
3. She believed the landlord had given conflicting explanations for the increased service charge to herself and her neighbour. It had told the neighbour the increase was due to a more expensive contractor being used.
4. She did not benefit from a communal garden. The communal garden to which residents of her block had access was run by a committee and she was required to buy a key for it. She had not done this as it was too expensive. A door giving direct access to the garden from the block was locked (despite having a fire door sticker on it).
5. The area at the back of the building was not a garden, but a path leading to the communal garden.
6. The cleaning contractor attended once a month for around 20 minutes. The only activities they completed were vacuuming the stairs carpet, polishing the mirror in the hallway, and spraying the tiles on the ground floor. They did not do any gardening or hose down the front step. There were also no weeds, leaf fall or dog mess for them to remove.
7. She and her neighbour cleaned the basement wells themselves, as she believed the cleaner would be physically incapable of doing so.
8. She had never seen the cleaner use water in the building. Instead, they used a disinfectant spray for the tiles. She had previously written to the landlord about the communal water charge, and it had agreed to remove it.
9. She understood 2 tenants had received pest control visits in the past as they did not keep their flats clean. However, she did not feel this cost should be passed on to others, like herself, who did keep their flats clean. She also noted that rodent boxes in the block had not been replaced for 3 years.
10. She believed she was being charged an extra £16 per month for “mostly made up service charges”. This was at odds with the landlord’s charity status, as she felt it was using charity money to make a profit.
11. The increased charges disproportionately impacted her because of her health conditions and low income.
12. She asked the landlord to:
  1. provide details of its cleaning contractor’s tender;
  2. provide copies of bills, including for pest control and fire alarm servicing;
  3. refund the ‘communal garden’ element of her previous year’s service charge.
On 8 November 2021 the resident sent a further email to this Service, which was copied to the landlord. She provided a photo and video of the cleaner, who she said attended the building at 7.59am on 3 November 2021 and left at 8.14am. She also included a photo of the ‘tick sheet’ that the cleaner completed on 3 November 2021, which indicated that they had completed tasks that were not done or did not need doing. These tasks included: removing litter from the pathway; removing cobwebs; suction cleaning the entrance, landing and stairs; damp mopping the floor; cleaning windowsills; removing scuff marks; and collecting loose litter. The resident again said that she did not have a garden or access to one, and that the cleaner did not tend the back path.
The resident sent this Service and the landlord a photo of the area she believed the landlord classed as a garden on 9 November 2021. She explained that the area was in fact an alleyway giving access to a communal garden, which she already paid for via her council tax. However, she said she did not have a key to the alleyway, and she did not believe the cleaner had a key either. In response to the resident’s communications, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint on its system on 9 November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 30 November 2021, stating that:
1. It had attempted to call the resident on 2 occasions to discuss her complaint, but was unable to speak to her.
2. In investigating the complaint, it had referred to reports from its contractor and estates services officer.
3. Overall, it upheld the complaint.
4. It was organising to visit the block with its contractor’s supervisor in order to understand the layout of the area and any health and safety implications of the cleaner lowering themselves into the basement wells. It upheld this aspect of the complaint as it had not been able to provide a plan of action within the timescales required. However, it reviewed the standard of cleaning from photos provided following every attendance, and the remainder of the property appeared to be cleaned to an acceptable standard. Its estates services officer was attending the block regularly to monitor the situation.
5. It did not consider it a direct service failure for the cleaner to tick items on the sheet despite not completing them, as they could not remove things (such as cobwebs) that were not there. However, it acknowledged that this was a misleading representation of the service delivered and paid for. It was in the process of redesigning its tick sheets to address this issue. It would also be using a new method of capturing feedback from residents regarding its cleaning and maintenance service. It upheld this aspect of the complaint as it understood why the issue had contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction.
6. It offered its sincere apologies for the issues, and thanked the resident for bringing them to its attention. If she was not satisfied with its response, she could request escalation to stage 2 within 28 days.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord contacted the resident by phone, then followed up the conversation in writing. Its email stated that it felt the best course of action was for it to open a formal complaint; this would allow it to provide “proper explanations” for each of the service charges it was asking residents to pay. It confirmed that the resident’s concerns related to charges for communal water, the communal garden, and cleaning. It also stated its agreement that the resident could withhold payment for the disputed charges until the matter had been fully investigated. The resident replied on 21 December 2021, giving further examples of her concerns about the charges and their impact. She confirmed that she would withhold £21.74 per month of her service charge until all investigations were concluded.
The landlord then provided a second stage 1 complaint response on 23 December 2021. This focused on the resident’s concerns regarding the communal water, garden and cleaning charges. It stated the following:
1. In relation to the communal water charge:
  1. It had reviewed the invoices it received in 2020-21 from the local water provider, and confirmed that it received charges for a communal water source in the block containing the resident’s property.
  2. Its contracted cleaners generally used their own water source (as their vans held a large quantity of water), but would tap into the communal supply where possible.
  3. The current year’s charge of £6 per month was based on the previous year’s expenditure and invoices.
  4. It was therefore unable to remove the charge, and it believed it to be reasonable.
2. In relation to the communal garden charge:
  1. It had reviewed the contract that was in place and liaised with its estate manager regarding the charge of £3.19 per month.
  2. It confirmed that its contractor was not contracted to clean the communal garden (which it understood the resident did not have access to).
  3. The description ‘communal gardening’ included weed control, treatment of hard surfaces in cold weather, maintenance of front and rear paths and concreted areas, and removal of leaf fall, blossom and animal waste.
  4. On reviewing what its contractor was required to do and the charge that had been applied, it could not identify any discrepancy.
  5. It agreed that the term ‘communal gardening’ was misleading, and this was something it may be able to address the following year. However, it was unable to remove the charge from the resident’s account.
3. In relation to the communal cleaning charge:
  1. It had had some performance issues with its contractor over the past year, and had been working hard to put this right.
  2. The charge for the coming year was fixed, based on the price of the contract.
  3. If the service did not improve, and there was evidence that the resident had not received a service she had paid for, it would revisit this.
  4. Based on its investigation, the charge was reasonable and would remain in the resident’s charge for the current year.
  5. It proposed that it contacted the resident over the next month to confirm that the cleaning was now up to standard.
4. It understood that the resident remained concerned about affordability. It suggested she spoke to its income management officer for some advice about support for which she may be eligible.
5. If she was dissatisfied with its response, she should reply within 10 working days and choose between 2 ‘routes’ to stage 2 of its process. One of these involved a review by an executive director, and the other involved a complaints panel.
On 30 December 2021 the resident emailed the landlord following a teleconference with the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). She noted that the FTT had offered her the opportunity to provide comments before making its final decision. She therefore asked the landlord to pass on the following points:
1. She understood that the service charges were fixed, but the landlord’s letter said that she should pay the charges if she accepted them. If she did not accept them, she had been advised to pursue this through organisations such as FTT, Citizens Advice and this Service.
2. The landlord had agreed that the cleaning charge was unfair in view of the service provided, but was still asking her to pay it. She felt she should not have to pay for a service she was not receiving, and that on this basis, the previous year’s charges should be refunded to her.
3. The landlord was “so apologetic” during its phone conversation with her on 20 December 2021, and she felt for the first time that she was speaking to someone who would listen. However, the same officer sent her a letter 3 days later which “dismissed everything”.
4. The situation was causing her fear and anxiety. She felt that the only safe thing in her life – her home – was now “so unsafe”.
5. She restated her concerns and that she was currently withholding around £21 per month of her service charge (with the landlord’s agreement).
On 5 January 2022 the resident informed this Service that the FTT were unable to take any action in relation to her rent increase. However, she said her main concern was the service charge increase. At the Ombudsman’s suggestion, the resident contacted the landlord on 21 January 2022 to request escalation of her complaint to stage 2 of its process. She outlined the reasons she was dissatisfied with its stage 1 response, which were:
1. She had said “over and over” that there was no water source in the communal areas, yet she was being charged for this. There was no tap inside or outside the building.
2. The front and rear concreted areas, which the landlord classed as a garden, had not been cleaned for years. The cleaner did not have access to them. There were no weeds to remove; the step did not get snow on it when it snowed; there was never an issue with dog mess; she cleaned the basement wells herself; and there was litter left in other areas. She attached photos showing the condition of these areas.
3. She believed the landlord was incorrectly applying charges for its “big block buildings” to her smaller building, where not all services were received or necessary.
4. She had previously asked why there were 2 charges relating to fire services, and why tenants were paying for flooring when the building had a durable and hardwearing carpet, but received no answer.
5. She still felt she should be refunded for the previous year’s gardening charge of £9.55 per month.
The landlord held a stage 2 complaint panel meeting on 1 March 2022. The resident attended the meeting and gave a summary of her issues with the service charge and the impact of the increased charge on her. Following internal discussion on 16 March 2022, the landlord went on to issue its stage 2 response on 17 March 2022. This stated that:
1. The breakdown of service charges previously provided to the resident was a “work-in-progress file” and should not have been sent to tenants. The items described on this document were not reflective of the charges being made, as they had not been correctly allocated.
2. The service charges for which the resident was liable were fixed charges, based on known or expected costs for provision and improvement of service chargeable items over the coming year. It was not allowed to recover costs incurred in previous years, or to refund costs received (unless the service charge was not applicable to the property).
3. In relation to the charge for cleaning services and the quality of these:
  1. The service charge for cleaning reflected the cost of its contract for the year. A cleaning service was required for the block.
  2. It was aware that there had been issues regarding the quality of cleaning services delivered in the previous year. It had been monitoring and managing the quality of these services and expected the resident had seen an improvement.
  3. It had also begun the process of retendering the services to further improve the quality of the service and its value for money.
  4. Issues around quality of service were not reflected in a fixed service charge system, as costs and quality issues incurred in a previous year could not be brought forward into the current year.
  5. Instead, it could offer compensation for poor quality of service, and offered £30 as a gesture of goodwill.
  6. It partially upheld this aspect of the complaint.
4. In relation to the charge for communal water:
  1. It confirmed that there was no communal water source within the block. Its stage 1 responder had said that the figure within the service charge statement was based on costs incurred during the previous year, but this was incorrect.
  2. The document which was sent to the resident in error included a charge for communal water, but this charge was in fact for communal heating and lighting. The charge reflected the expected cost of providing these services in the coming 12 months.
  3. It offered £10 as a gesture of goodwill, as the information it provided at stage 1 was incorrect.
  4. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
5. In relation to the charge for garden maintenance:
  1. For several years it had included gardening and grounds maintenance under the single heading of ‘gardening’. It acknowledged that the wording and breakdown of charges was confusing, and did not adequately describe the service being provided. It was in the process of updating its service charge process, including the layout of the schedule.
  2. The amount charged for ‘gardening’ was for grounds maintenance, specifically maintenance of the frontage area outside the property. It found that this was a necessary service and that the cost was reflective of its contract for the year.
  3. During the panel meeting, the resident mentioned that this area was inaccessible to tenants and to its contractor who carried out the grounds maintenance. This should not be the case. It would be working with its contractor to ensure it could access the area and carry out the cleaning and maintenance it was required to do.
  4. It understood that, to date, the area had not been cleaned due to the lack of access, and it offered £20 in compensation for this oversight.
  5. It partially upheld this aspect of the complaint.
6. In relation to the charges for the fire alarm:
  1. Fire safety requirements had been strengthened since the Grenfell disaster, and it undertook a desktop review of fire safety and other safety compliance systems at all its properties in 2020-21.
  2. This resulted in a 5-year programme to improve and enhance those systems. The associated costs were substantial and were reflected in an annualised amount within the service charges for 2021-22.
  3. It had reviewed the amount being charged and found that it was reasonable in light of the additional requirements for fire safety.
  4. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
7. In relation to the charge for flooring maintenance:
  1. The amount shown against this item on the working document was for the provision of flooring in communal areas.
  2. As flooring was currently provided and would continue to be provided, this charge was reasonable.
  3. It did not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
8. It enclosed with its response an amended service charge schedule for 2021-22 based on its new draft layout. It hoped this was clearer and more user friendly. It would appreciate the resident’s feedback on this, to help it improve the schedule before it was used for the 2022-23 period.
9. It believed that its response to her initial complaint could have been better. Due to this, it offered her an additional £10 as a goodwill gesture. This brought the total offered to £70.
10. Overall, it partially upheld the stage 2 complaint. It apologised for the “numerous difficulties and poor service” the resident had received.

Post complaint

The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman on 1 April 2022. In her referral email she noted that she had been prepared to “let go” the refund of her previous year’s gardening charge, but after receiving a recent communication from the landlord stating that her tenancy could be threatened by her withholding of some of her service charge (despite giving her permission to do this), she now still wished to pursue the refund.
Between 13 May 2022 and 28 November 2022 the resident sent this Service evidence relating to her case. On 23 June 2022 she advised that she no longer had an issue with the fire alarm charge. On 5 September 2022 she said that the landlord had again increased her service charge without justification.
On 17 October 2022, an email from the landlord to the resident stated that the information she had provided had been added to a new stage 1 complaint. The resident replied on 31 October 2022 that she did not feel a further complaint was required, as she had already complained and escalated her complaint to this Service. However, on 2 December 2022 the landlord produced a further stage 1 response. This was sent to the resident on 7 December 2022, and stated that:
1. In investigating the complaint it had considered its rent and service charge policy alongside the cost of service provided in the resident’s block. It had also reviewed the complaint with managers responsible for compliance, and set aside a date to undertake a review of the scope and quality of services provided by its cleaning contractor in the block.
2. In relation to cleaning and maintenance of the communal area:
  1. It had met with its contractor and passed on the resident’s feedback regarding its services. It explained that the service currently being provided in the block did not meet its service standards. It would be working closely with the contractor to ensure future cleaning met its service level agreement.
  2. The contractor was required to attend twice a week for a total of 30 minutes to carry out a clean to the internal communal area.
  3. It had made enquiries regarding removal of moss and lumps of concrete from the external areas. It aimed to complete this within 60 days.
  4. It would continue to monitor the contractor’s performance to prevent poor service being repeated.
  5. The resident’s requests for additional communal lighting and a floor covering to the communal staircase were considered estate improvements. Should funding be available for improvements in the block, her suggestions would be considered.
3. In relation to the service charge breakdown:
  1. Service charges were an amount that tenants paid to cover the cost of providing communal/shared services to a building – and, if applicable, the surrounding estate – to ensure their upkeep, safety and maintenance.
  2. It operated fixed service charges, with the total cost of services being shared between all the properties in the block that benefited from them. Once the charge had been set, any difference between estimated and actual costs was absorbed by the landlord.
  3. It reviewed service charges annually, assessed whether services were still required and/or in need of improvement, and considered other factors such as relevant changes in legislation and regulation.
  4. Following the tragic Grenfell fire, new requirements were introduced for all landlords. These included additional checks on fire alarms, smoke detectors and water tanks. These were justified but came at a cost, which was recoverable via tenants’ service charge and had contributed to that year’s increase.
  5. The monthly service charge of £31.02, which the resident had queried, included the management of all planned and unplanned health and safety services, such as those relating to fire safety and legionella.
  6. The total cost for fire safety for the block that year was £3,145.64. This covered a fire risk assessment, completion of associated actions, servicing of fire equipment and communal doors.
  7. It provided tables showing the breakdown of fire safety and legionella related costs.
4. In relation to its delayed complaint response:
  1. It had recently updated its database and experienced “teething problems”. It had now rectified these and was working through cases.
  2. It regretted that it had not managed to respond to the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. It apologised for this and for any confusion and frustration its delays may have caused.
  3. It offered £15 as a goodwill gesture, which would be offset against her rent arrears.
5. If the resident was dissatisfied with its response, she could request a stage 2 review by its director of operations within 20 working days.
On 28 December 2022 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 response, noting that she had been ill which prevented her from replying sooner. She restated her original concerns relating to the communal garden and cleaning of indoor and outdoor areas. She noted that:
1. Workmen attended 2 weeks ago and removed the stones from the communal pathway, but residents still could not access the path as the door was locked. The stairway to the door was also “filthy” and dangerous.
2. She had noticed over the past few weeks that cleaning had been carried out more regularly now that the landlord was monitoring the issue. She would therefore pay the cleaning charge for October, November and December 2022, which she had previously withheld as part of the disputed charge, in her January 2023 rent payment.
3. The landlord had said that the communal water charge was actually for heating and lighting. However, there was no heating in the communal areas, and only about 4 LED lightbulbs which switched themselves off after a short period. She did not believe these lightbulbs cost £882 per year.
4. She also felt £466 per year for residents to walk on a carpet, and for the carpet to be vacuumed, was “ridiculous”. If the landlord planned to renew the carpet, she asked it to provide receipts.
5. She requested:
  1. A detailed breakdown of the new service charge of £31.02;
  2. Explanations of the terms ‘FRA’, ‘FRA remedial works’, ‘LRA’ and ‘LRA actions’;
  3. Receipts relating to fire safety and legionella measures;
  4. Clarification as to whether the landlord intended to refund her the previous year’s gardening charge of £114.
On at least 13 occasions between 6 January 2023 and 3 October 2023, the resident repeated her request for the things she asked for in her email of 28 December 2022. She also informed the landlord each month that she continued to withhold part of her service charge, providing a running total of the amount in dispute. By 3 October 2023, the disputed amount was £405.70. Other than acknowledging receipt of the emails on 4 occasions, there is no evidence that the landlord responded. The Ombudsman has also seen no evidence that it answered the resident’s requests (either by providing the information requested, or by stating that it would not provide it and why).
On 19 January 2023 the resident informed the landlord that, while the cleaning contractor was supposed to visit twice a month, it had last attended on 28 December 2022. She noted that someone in the block took a Christmas tree out on 1 January 2023, which left pine needles in the communal areas. She sent a photo showing that the pine needles were still there 18 days later. She therefore assumed that the cleaner was claiming to visit twice a month but only visiting once to complete the tick sheet, as had happened before. The landlord responded on 20 January 2023 and said it would pass the resident’s query on to the appropriate department for investigation.
In March 2023 the resident asked her MP for assistance. The MP wrote to the landlord on 11 April 2023 and forwarded its response to the resident on 26 April 2023. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response, which indicated that its director of asset management was unaware of her complaint and its lack of response to her requests. In August 2023 the resident asked her MP whether the landlord had provided a further response, and in September 2023 the landlord told the MP that it recommended the resident made a further formal complaint. The resident said she did not wish to log a further complaint, as her existing complaint about the ongoing issues was with this Service.
On 15 May 2023 a pest control service found evidence of a vermin infestation in the refuse storage area of the resident’s block. On 5 September 2023 the resident informed the landlord that she could smell rodents inside the building, and asked if rodent boxes which had recently been removed from the communal areas were going to be replaced. On 15 October 2023 the local authority wrote to residents of the block, informing them that it had suspended waste collections from the building until it received a report confirming the area was free of vermin. The letter also stated that its waste collection contractor had experienced difficulties in removing refuse from the block, as it was not packaged correctly and the storage area was not maintained to a high standard.
On 11 September 2023 the resident requested a breakdown of the new service charge for 2023-24. The landlord provided this on 14 September 2023. On 26 September 2023 the resident informed it that she could not afford to pay the increased rent, and that from 1 October 2023 she would pay £10 of the £30 per month increase. She noted that she was still waiting for answers to her requests made on 28 December 2022. On 3 October 2023 she confirmed that she had paid her full October rent, and repeated her requests.
On 1 November 2023 the resident informed this Service that the cleaning service provided in the block continued to be of a poor quality, with mess and finger marks remaining in places they were left months before.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(d) and (f), the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of a rent or service charge increase, or which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The Ombudsman understands that the resident has already taken her case to the FTT. Despite the outcome of that investigation, and any advice the resident may have received, it is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to make a determination regarding the level of the resident’s service charge or its increase. Instead, this investigation will consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and complaint about her service charge, and whether it treated her fairly in the circumstances.

Service charge enquiries

Garden maintenance

It is not unusual for service charge schedules to include generic or legacy headings, although it is good practice for any misleading wording to be explained. Once the landlord identified the source of the resident’s confusion regarding the term ‘gardening’, it explained what activities this item covered and clarified that it related to the communal outdoor areas of the block (as opposed to a separate communal garden not maintained by the landlord). Its explanations on 4 October 2021 and 23 December 2021 were satisfactory.
It is also generally acceptable for service charges to include activities that do not require frequent or routine completion, or are completed on an as-needed basis. It was therefore appropriate for the garden maintenance charge to cover items such as removal of leaf fall, weeds and animal fouling. While the resident’s objection that there were no weeds to remove is appreciated, it is sufficient that the landlord made arrangements for removal of any weeds that may have existed. Likewise, removal of animal fouling may relate to fouling by animals other than dogs (such as foxes or rodents), and its inclusion was reasonable given the urban location of the block.
It is apparent, however, that the garden maintenance arranged by the landlord could not be fully completed due to its contractor’s lack of access to certain outdoor areas. The resident raised this with the landlord on 8 November 2021, but it did not acknowledge the lack of access or its resulting service failure until 17 March 2022. It also offered no financial redress for this particular failure. Due to the fixed nature of the service charge, which the landlord explained to the resident in its letters dated 17 March 2022 and 2 December 2022, a refund of previous years’ charges cannot be ordered. Instead, orders for compensation – to reflect the service paid for but not received by the resident, and the inconvenience caused to her as a result – have been made.

Communal cleaning

As the landlord explained to the resident on 17 March 2022, it was required to provide a cleaning service for the indoor communal areas of the block. It therefore follows that the costs of this contract would be passed on to residents via their service charge. When the resident raised issues with the quality of the cleaning service (with evidence), the landlord addressed these through a number of proportionate methods, such reviewing the condition of the building from photos, monitoring visits by its estates services officer, contract management, and ultimately retendering the contract. However, it delayed in doing so, meaning that the resident was paying for an inadequate cleaning service for at least 10 months (November 2021 to September 2022). In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer of £30 compensation for this was insufficient, and an order for additional compensation has been made.

Communal water

When the resident queried a communal water charge that formed part of her service charge, the landlord initially said the charge was for communal water and based on its actual costs the previous year, despite having previously agreed to remove the charge when the resident informed it that there was no communal water source. It later accepted, in its stage 2 complaint response, that this information was inaccurate. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its error. However, its internal correspondence on 16 March 2022 indicated that it held 2 distinct and conflicting records relating to service charges for the resident’s block. The emails exchanged internally, seen by this Service, suggest a disorganised and inconsistent approach. It is concerning, not only that an erroneous document was issued to the resident on this occasion, but also that she said a version of the same incorrect document was issued every year. This may be evidence of a more widespread record keeping issue, and a recommendation has been made to explore this further.
Once it identified its error, the landlord told the resident that the charge in question related to communal heating and lighting rather than water. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it failed to satisfactorily account for the level of the charge. The resident pointed out that there was no communal heating source in the block, and only a small number of communal lights, which did not appear to justify a yearly charge to all residents of around £880. While it is not the role of this Service to assess how much services should cost, the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding this matter was poor, and it did not provide sufficient assurance that the cost was reflective of the service provided. In addition to compensation for this omission, an order has been made for the landlord to provide a more detailed explanation for this charge, including provision of receipts/invoices if these are available.

Fire safety

This aspect of the complaint has been assessed for completeness, although the Ombudsman notes that the resident said she no longer took issue with fire safety charges on 23 June 2022.
It was reasonable for the landlord to increase its fire safety charge following changes to legislation and regulation, which resulted in additional costs. However, it was confusing for it to include 2 separate charges under the same heading, without explanation, in residents’ service charge schedule. When the resident queried the multiple charges, it provided an appropriate explanation (albeit that, as discussed under ‘complaint handling’ below, the tables provided used abbreviations that the resident did not recognise). It is unclear why the landlord did not respond promptly to the resident’s request on 28 December 2022 for terms such as ‘FRA’ and ‘LRA’ to be explained. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it ever responded, despite the resident repeating her request at least 13 times over the next 10 months. This was unacceptable, and no doubt compounded the resident’s feeling of being ignored and deprioritised.
For clarity, ‘FRA’ is assumed to refer to a fire risk assessment, and ‘LRA’ to a legionella risk assessment. As indicated in the landlord’s tables, both risk assessments generated actions (such as remedial works) to ensure compliance with requirements.

Flooring maintenance

Since the landlord provides flooring in the indoor communal area, it is reasonable for it to charge residents for maintaining and replacing the flooring as part of their service charge. The charge would not be expected to include routine cleaning, but may include other items such as repair, deep cleaning, treating of wood, and future replacement of carpet. The landlord would not be expected to provide invoices relating to a possible future purchase, but it would be expected to explain its decision making to the resident.

Summary

An overall finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s service charge enquiries. This is due to its provision of poor quality cleaning and garden maintenance services, which did not reflect the standard of services it should provide for the charges it makes; its delayed response to the issues raised by the resident; its confusing and inaccurate description of communal utility charges; its insufficient offer of compensation; and its failure to respond to the resident’s specific requests.
It is hoped and intended that, following this investigation, both parties can draw a line under the issue regarding historical service charges. The resident retains the options of raising any current quality issues or ambiguities with the landlord and of making further complaints, which she may refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with the outcome.

Complaint handling

The landlord did not manage the resident’s complaint effectively. When the Ombudsman asked it to provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days on 29 September 2021, it did not do so; instead, it sent a letter on 4 October 2021 which addressed some of the resident’s concerns, but which was not a formal complaint response. This delayed the resident’s access to the complaints procedure set out in the landlord’s policy. It also did not explain any departure from the policy – for instance, if it felt its complaints process did not apply to the resident’s case, or if it intended to provide an ‘early resolution’ as an alternative to a formal response. It is noteworthy that, when the Ombudsman later requested information from the landlord, it did not provide a copy of its letter of 4 October 2021. Instead, a photo of the letter was provided by the resident.
It was not until 9 November 2021, after the resident had sent two further emails expressing her continued dissatisfaction, that the landlord logged a formal complaint. Even then, it did not acknowledge the complaint or provide a target response date, which its complaints policy says it will do within 5 days. It then provided its stage 1 response 15 working days later. The response time therefore exceeded its published timeframe of 10 working days, and it did not inform the resident that it required more time to respond (or why).
Some of the solutions implemented by the landlord as part of its stage 1 response were proactive and helpful, such as arranging a visit with its contractor’s supervisor and redesigning its tick sheets. It drew reasonable findings from the available evidence, demonstrated its understanding of the resident’s concerns, and made appropriate reference to the measures it used to assess its contractor’s performance. Having upheld the complaint, it was right to apologise. The Ombudsman notes that some of the points made by the resident in her email of 16 October 2021 were not addressed in the stage 1 response, such as her requests for details of its contractor’s tender, copies of bills, and refund of her previous year’s service charge for communal gardening. However, since this email was sent to this Service and not copied to the landlord, it is unclear whether the landlord would have seen the contents. Based on the landlord’s apparent knowledge of the resident’s concerns and the information available to it at the time, the stage 1 response was adequate.
It is unclear why the landlord went on to provide a second stage 1 response on 23 December 2021, rather than escalating the complaint to stage 2, as the resident’s outstanding concerns related to matters she had raised in her emails of 8 and 9 November 2021. The resident evidently appreciated the landlord’s phone call on 20 December 2021 (which appeared to be prompted by developments in the FTT case), but felt this was at odds with the “dismissive” tone of the stage 1 response produced by the same officer 3 days later. The inconsistency of these communications created confusion and distrust.
By the landlord’s own admission, the stage 1 response sent on 23 December 2021 contained inaccurate information (as discussed above): it wrongly stated that the landlord had received charges for a communal water source in the resident’s block in 2020-21, and that the current year’s charge was based on this expenditure. It did, however, provide satisfactory explanations for why it believed the service charges for communal cleaning and gardening were reasonable. It was also appropriate for it to suggest that the resident spoke to its income management officer about financial support, although it could have been more proactive in putting support in place (for example, by making a referral to the relevant team, arranging a meeting, and/or sending links to suitable online resources). It should also have considered its safeguarding responsibilities in light of the resident’s disclosures about her living conditions, such as the fact that she relied on street lighting indoors, wore coats to avoid using heating, and did not have a cooker or fridge because of electricity costs. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord – a charitable organisation championing female empowerment and promoting affordable housing for women – to ensure its tenant’s welfare.
The resident’s dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response would have been apparent from the comments she asked the landlord to pass on to the FTT on 30 December 2021. Despite this, the landlord did not ask whether she wished to escalate her complaint to stage 2 at this point. Instead, it waited for her to explicitly state her escalation request nearly a month later. It is unclear if and when the landlord acknowledged the escalation request. A stage 2 complaint panel was convened (presumably at the resident’s request) 27 working days later, with the stage 2 response itself being issued 12 working days after the panel. The overall 39-day response time exceeded the 20 days set out in the complaints policy.
The stage 2 response sent on 17 March 2022 was detailed and thorough, and provided clear explanations for the landlord’s decision making. However, it is unclear why it did not uphold the aspect of the complaint relating to the communal water charge, as it agreed that the information provided was incorrect and offered a goodwill payment in relation to this. In view of its error regarding the service charge schedule (discussed above), its enclosure of an amended schedule was appropriate, as was its offer of financial redress. However, the amount offered – £70, in line with its tariff for minor impact – was unacceptably low in view of the extent to which the resident was affected, and did not take sufficient account of her disability. An order for additional compensation has therefore been made, as discussed above.
The resident was clear in her subsequent emails that she continued to await this Service’s determination of her complaint, and that she was withholding disputed elements of her service charge (with the landlord’s knowledge and permission) until the investigation was concluded. The landlord’s decision to log a further stage 1 complaint in October 2022, against the resident’s wishes, therefore appeared an arbitrary and unhelpful one. While the response (provided 37 working days after the landlord told the resident it had logged the complaint) provided a useful update, this could have been provided as part of routine correspondence rather than in the context of a formal complaint response. The further goodwill gesture of £15 was again insufficient in view of the obvious distress and inconvenience caused. The cost breakdown provided in table form – though no doubt intended to demonstrate openness – contained acronyms that the resident did not understand, and so generated more questions than it answered.
The landlord’s recommendation for yet another formal complaint to be logged, when responding to an MP enquiry in September 2023, was indicative of a mechanical and generic approach that was not tailored to the resident’s needs. It also demonstrated a lack of learning from the complaint, as this approach had repeatedly proved ineffective in resolving the issues raised. While the resident retained the option of making a further complaint, the process should not have been enforced or used as an excuse to disregard her communications. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence of alternative solutions being explored and attempts to rebuild the landlord-tenant relationship.
An overall finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling, due to the landlord’s failure to log and acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint; its delays in responding; its decision to open a second stage 1 complaint rather than responding at stage 2; the inaccuracies in its second stage 1 response; its provision of a third unwanted stage 1 response; and its recommendation to log a fourth stage 1 complaint rather than address the substance of the resident’s continued concerns. Significantly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord used its complaints process to block the resident’s access to effective services and avenues of escalation. This caused unnecessarily prolonged distress and uncertainty, and had a disproportionately detrimental effect on an already vulnerable resident over a 26-month period.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s service charge enquiries;
2. severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

For periods of at least 10 and 4 months respectively, the contracted cleaning and garden maintenance services provided by the landlord and paid for by the resident were inadequate. The landlord delayed in acting on information provided by the resident. Its communication with her was poor and at times contained inaccurate and misleading information. While it took some positive action, it failed to respond to the resident’s 13 requests for clarification of terms used in its correspondence. The compensation it offered did not reflect the extent of its failures or the impact of these on the resident, who was vulnerable.
The landlord did not log a stage 1 complaint and provide a response when asked to do so by this Service. When it did log a complaint nearly 6 weeks later, it did not inform the resident of this, and its response time exceeded the timeframe set out in its policy. In response to the resident’s continued and related concerns, it produced a second stage 1 response rather than escalating the original complaint to stage 2. This response was apparently at odds with a conversation it had had with the resident 3 days before, and contained incorrect information about a communal water charge. The landlord’s complaint panel and stage 2 response were delayed without explanation. While the case was awaiting investigation by the Ombudsman, the landlord logged a third stage 1 complaint against the resident’s wishes, and proposed logging a fourth complaint when her MP made an enquiry on her behalf. This caused understandable frustration and prolonged distress to the resident, whose other communications were not being responded to at the time.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays, inadequate service provision, poor communication and inaccurate information.
2. Pay the resident £1,600, comprising:
  1. £300 for the poor quality cleaning service it provided from (at least) November 2021 to September 2022;
  2. £100 for the poor quality garden maintenance service it provided from (at least) November 2021 to March 2022;
  3. £100 for its inaccurate information relating to communal utility charges;
  4. £100 for its lack of response to her requests on 28 December 2022;
  5. £800 for its complaint handling failures;
  6. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of its delays and poor communication.

If the payments of £70 and £15 offered by the landlord on 17 March 2022 and 2 December 2022 have already been paid to the resident, these should be deducted from the total above, meaning that the difference of £1,515 is now due. In accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the payment should be made to the resident as a distinct payment, rather than offset against any rent or service charge arrears (unless this is her expressed preference).

Provide a detailed explanation of the ‘communal heating and lighting’ item included in the resident’s service charge. This should demonstrate how the charge is calculated. If receipts, invoices or other relevant documentation is available, copies should be provided to show transparency. If such documents are not available, this should be clearly stated and why.
Respond to the requests made by the resident in her email of 28 December 2022, if it has not already done so. It should be noted that receipts relating to previous years may no longer be available, but efforts should be made to answer the questions asked.
Inform the resident of her right to inspect and take copies of its accounts, receipts and documents relating to service charges within a specified period under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It should include details of how she can exercise this right and local arrangements for inspecting invoices (for example, attending its offices at a particular address, and any cost for making copies).
Provide to the resident details of financial support for which she may be eligible, and offer her a meeting with its income management officer to discuss this and progress any referrals.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord encloses a leaflet (or similar) with future service charge schedules, to explain what each charge relates to. This is particularly important where headings are generic or could be misleading.
It is recommended that the landlord carries out a review of its record keeping in relation to service charges for the resident’s block, with reference to communications sent to residents each year (where copies remain available). It should satisfy itself that all future service charge schedules accurately reflect the charges made to residents, and that they are applicable to the block. The Ombudsman notes that this issue may already have been partially or fully addressed by the revised schedule implemented in 2022.
It is recommended that the landlord takes prompt action to address the suspected rodent infestation in the internal and external communal areas of the block, if it has not already done so. It is further recommended that the landlord sets out its position with regard to any additional costs associated with this, in recognition of the fact that its poor quality cleaning service may have contributed to the issue.