London Borough of Hackney (202225107)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225107

London Borough of Hackney

26 September 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 regarding the landlord’s;
   1. Handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge account.
   2. Complaints handling.

Background

2. The resident has occupied the property since October 2020 as a leaseholder.
3. The resident contacted the landlord in May 2022 to make enquires about an outstanding balance on his service charge account. On 13 June 2022, the resident emailed the landlord raising a number of concerns and discrepancies in the service charge account and asking for clarification on a number of charges. He also asked for a formal complaint to be raised. The landlord responded on 1 July 2022, providing him with contact details for the complaints team and advising him to make his complaint directly.
4. The resident contacted said complaints team on 19 July 2022 again raising concerns about issues with the charges on his service charge account and the lack of evidence or explanation for this. He advised that he had spent a lot of time trying to contact the landlord to get answers and this had caused him and his wife a lot of stress and inconvenience.
5. The landlord provided it stage one response on 28 July 2022, though it was dated 25 July 2022. It advised that a charge of £618.95 had been added to the resident’s service charge account in error and it had since applied a credit adjustment to rectify this. It apologised for any inconvenience this had caused. The landlord stated that the resident’s initial complaint was lengthy and detailed and this is why he had been asked to make it directly to the complaints team. It apologised that this wasn’t explained clearly and advised that further instruction would be given to staff so this did not happen again.
6. The resident requested the complaint be raised to stage two as he was unhappy with the response. He stated that the stage one response had not answered all aspects of his complaint.
7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 16 August 2022. It advised that the error in the account took longer than expected to fix and apologised for this. It offered £50 compensation for the time and trouble taken by the resident and the inconvenience caused. It stated the error was not easily identifiable and the account had to be manually checked which took time. The landlord went on to apologise for not raising the complaint to stage one when requested and advised this would be raised with the relevant team leader.
8. The resident accepted the compensation offer on 19 August 2022, and this acceptance was forwarded to the appropriate department for processing on 7 September 2022. With no further communication, however, the resident contacted the landlord on 16 January 2023 advising that the payment had not been made. The landlord processed the payment that day.
9. The resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. As a resolution he is seeking a review of the landlord’s policy and process to ensure the delay in compensation processing is not repeated.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge account.

10. The resident raised concerns over an outstanding balance in his service charge account in May 2022. The landlord provided the resident with a breakdown and explanation of the charges. He remained dissatisfied with this explanation and asked for further clarification and evidence. He also requested the complaint be raised at stage one.
11. In the landlord’s stage one response it advised that a charge had been applied incorrectly and a credit adjustment had been made to correct the error. It apologised for any inconvenience this had caused. While advising of the error and adjustment was the correct action, the landlord could have explained the cause of the error and what precautions it had put in place to ensure it would not happen again. Doing this could have given the resident more peace of mind that the complaint had been taken seriously and the error would not be repeated. This service does acknowledge that this was done at stage two.
12. The resident requested the complaint be raised to stage two as he felt the landlord had not responded to the complaint in full. He stated that the landlord had not explained why it did not contact him about any outstanding balance, the landlord did not acknowledge or explain why it took so long for the error to be found, and corrected and the landlord’s response to why his complaint had not been raised at the first point of contact was dissatisfactory.
13. In its stage two response the landlord apologised for the delay in identifying and putting right the issue and provided an explanation as to why this occurred. It offered £50 compensation for the time and trouble taken by the resident along with the inconvenience it had caused. This was proportionate and reasonable redress.
14. The landlord’s stage two response also provided answers to all of the resident’s stated questions. It acknowledged and apologised for failing to raise the complaint at the first point of contact, providing unsatisfactory information and customer service, and not addressing the error in a timely manner.
15. Ultimately the landlord did resolve the complaint by identifying the error and adjusting it accordingly. The landlord also exhibited practical learning by implementing a process that would not allow the error to occur again. As such, with consideration of all of the above, the landlord took sufficient steps to put things right. The only matter outstanding at this point was for the landlord to have honoured the remedy set out, within a reasonable time.
16. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Complaint Handling Code states “the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion”.
17. The resident accepted the landlord’s stage two compensation offer on 19 August 2022. This acceptance was forwarded to the appropriate department for processing on 7 September 2022. The resident then emailed the landlord on 16 January 2023 advising the payment had not been made. It was only following this prompt that the landlord processed the resident’s payment (on the same day).
18. The landlord is expected to follow through on any promises it makes to residents, particularly where this promise is in compensation for a service failure. By not processing the compensation, the landlord contributed to the resident’s distress and lack of trust in the landlord’s word. The resident, ultimately, had to wait a lengthy period of time to receive payment and it only came after he chased it. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have put things right at the earliest opportunity but it did not do this.
19. This Service acknowledges the landlord has advised that over the last six to nine months the service area has undertaken a training program and identified a dedicated resource who is responsible for monitoring the compensation inbox and processing payments. This is a practical solution and shows active learning by the landlord. However, it does not compensate the resident for the undue distress and delay he experienced. It has therefore been concluded that there was a service failure.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

20. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states “a complaint should be raised when the resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request”.
21. The resident advised the landlord that he wished for his complaint to be raised to stage one on 13 June 2022. The landlord did not do this, it instead advised the resident to email a different department with his complaint. This is not in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code.
22. In its stage two response the landlord apologised for this failure and advised it would be brought to the attention of the relevant team leader so it did not happen again. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and enforce active learning to ensure this incident would not occur again. This service is satisfied that the redress of an apology and active learning was proportionate. As such, a finding of reasonable redress will be made.

Determination

23. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge account.
24. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the issue about the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders

25. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is;
    1. To pay the resident £100 in recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about his service charge account. This is inclusive of the £50 already offered at stage two.
    2. To provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.