London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202208378)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208378

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

23 February 2024

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 landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about service charges.
The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident has been a leaseholder of the landlord since 14 April 2021. The property is a 2-bedroom house.
The lease states the resident agrees to contribute a fair proportion to be assessed from time to time by the landlord of the cost of repairing, maintaining, renewing, and cleaning of the common parts.
Common parts under the lease means the access roadways, footpaths, forecourts, lighting, hedges, trees, shrubs, boundary walls, refuse bin collection, communal gardens landscaped areas or facilities of the estate made intended for the use or enjoyment by the occupiers of the estate.

Summary of events

On 25 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord querying whether services that she was paying for were being provided. She said that the jobs within the estate were not being completed satisfactorily and asked that the matter be escalated to a manager. It is unknown whether the landlord responded.
In June and July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions querying her service charges. She said she had been made aware that the road was adopted by the council and queried why she should have to pay service charges. She did not receive a response from her landlord and when she did it had not answered her query, so she contacted this Service.
On 2 August 2022, this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The resident wanted a response to the complaint she had raised regarding her service charges.
On 11 August 2022, the landlord provided a stage 1 response. It said:
1. A service charge was payable under the lease in relation to the estate which is owned and managed by the landlord.
2. It had a new contractor to complete the communal grounds maintenance. In respect of the resident’s claim that works were not being done Its estate team would look into this.
3. The adopted roads were not included in the service charge, but the small common parts of the estate were the responsibility of the landlord and as a result and in line with the transfer agreement with homeowners the relevant costs were rechargeable.
4. It did acknowledge that its communication had been poor, and it had delayed in its responses. It offered £110 compensation broken down as £60 for inconvenience and distress and £50 for time and effort.
On 15 August 2022, the resident requested a stage 2. She said that no one had contacted her as advised to discuss her stage 1. The compensation was not “good enough” as she was still waiting for evidence in respect of her last service charge bill where she paid for bulk refuse collection, a mobile caretaker, and grounds maintenance. She had requested invoices and dates visited but had not received a response. She would like to opt out of paying the service charge as the services did not exist.
On 13 December 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. It said the resident is responsible for contributing to the services carried out to the external communal areas as outlined in the ownership documents. The service charge is variable. The estimated charges are reviewed annually. It would therefore vary from year to year. It made every effort to ensure all anticipated costs were included in the estimated charge but could not guarantee that the estimated costs would be enough to cover the actual expenditure. It provided information on how the resident could request to view the invoices supporting the costs.
It acknowledged its delays in its stage 2 response and apologised. It offered £90 compensation broken down as £20 for inconvenience. £20 for time and effort and £50 for its delay in dealing with the complaint.

Post complaint.

The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and disagreed that she should have to pay service charges as the local authority had adopted the street and were therefore maintaining the street.
In May 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to say that it had received confirmation of the adoption from the council in March 2023. It had implemented changes to its contracts to take effect from April 2023. Its estimated charges were calculated in January and letters sent to residents. The changes were therefore made after it had set the estimate for the financial year. Variable service charges were estimated and would be reconciled at the end of the financial year.
In September 2023, the landlord provided a copy of the updated map which showed the relevant road as adopted.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about service charges.

The resident’s complaint refers to the landlord’s handling of, and response to, her concerns raised in relation to the amount charged for the service charges. It should be made clear that the Ombudsman cannot review complaints that concern the level of service charge or the increase of service charges. This is in line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, we can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication with, and responses to, the resident were appropriate, fair, and reasonable.
Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the complainant has been advised to seek free and independent advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org) in relation to how to proceed with a case, should she wish to do so.
The landlord’s service charge policy states service charges are collected from those who receive services for the upkeep and maintenance of the communal areas around their home. In respect of variable service charges, it will assess the costs incurred for the most recent financial year against the previous estimated costs of that year to set the coming years charge. If the costs are more or less at the end of the year it will recover the costs or refund the difference. Service charge estimates for the forthcoming year will be issued a minimum of 1 calendar month before the first payment is due.
The landlord’s estate management policy states that the landlord would monitor its contractor’s compliance with its service level agreements.
The landlord’s initial response that the resident should have been advised in respect of her responsibility to pay service charges when she purchased the property was reasonable. It also explained her liability for the wider estate in accordance with the lease within its stage 2 response which was also appropriate.
The landlord did not however investigate the concerns the resident had raised about the lack of grounds maintenance. It simply said that it would look into this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide details of how it was looking into her concerns. It should have also explained what it had in place to monitor the grounds maintenance to ensure that the service met the appropriate standard. In its stage 2 response it directed the resident to an alternative department if she had any concerns with service quality. This response was inadequate and a missed opportunity to show that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and sought to put matters right at the earliest opportunity.
In respect of the resident’s claim that a road had been adopted by the local authority the landlord did not show that it had investigated this part of the resident’s enquiry at the earliest opportunity. The resident informed the landlord that she believed the road had been adopted in June 2022. The landlord did not provide a response until the matter was escalated to a complaint.
In its stage 1 response it said that adopted roads would not cover the common parts of the estate which would still remain the landlord’s responsibility. In its stage 2 response it explained that the resident was responsible for contributing to the external communal areas which was in accordance with the terms of the lease. In order to fully satisfy itself the landlord could have contacted the relevant local authority to ensure that it had fully investigated whether there had been any changes in the maintaining of the area as the resident had advised. That it did not was a failing in its handling of the resident’s queries about the service charges.
It is noted that the landlord offered £110 compensation for its poor communication and delays. This Service does not consider that this amount reflects the detriment caused to the resident. The failing not only caused the resident further time and effort in having to pursue her complaint but also having to contact and chase up the local authority to obtain confirmation of the road adoption herself. This also further delayed the review of the service charges to ensure that they were reduced to reflect the change in responsibility at the earliest opportunity.
Post complaint the evidence shows that the resident managed to obtain evidence herself from the local authority that the road was adopted which she sent to the landlord in March 2023. The landlord then contacted the local authority itself to establish when the adoption had taken place. The local authority could not confirm when it adopted the road and whether it had followed any process. The landlord’s continued charge for that service was not therefore unreasonable as it had continued to provide the service in its belief that it was responsible for the maintenance of the road. Furthermore, it was unable to establish at what point the road was adopted despite making the appropriate enquiries.
The evidence shows that when the landlord was made aware that the road had been adopted in March 2023 it had already set the service charge for the new financial year. Its policy states that the estimated charge must be issued a minimum of 1 calendar month before the first payment was due which it had done. The landlord could not therefore re-assess the charges at that point but agreed to consolidate this at the end. This was reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with its policy.
In respect of the resident’s concerns about the actual costs she was being charged. The landlord offered to provide the resident details of how she could view the invoices of the actual costs incurred at the end of the financial year which was appropriate in the circumstances. The landlord also provided the relevant invoices to this Service showing how it had finalised its actual charges for the previous financial year.
In summary this service considers that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about the service charges. It failed to monitor the standard of its ground’s maintenance. It also failed to take sufficient action to fully satisfy itself that there had been no changes to responsibility of the roads when the resident first made the landlord aware. It acknowledged its communication could have been better, but its offer of £110 compensation did not reflect the time, effort and inconvenience caused to the resident. Therefore, a series of orders are made out below.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy shows it aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction in May, June, and July 2022 but the landlord failed to raise a complaint until this Service intervened in August 2022. This was a failing and not in accordance with its own complaint policy.
The landlord then contacted the resident by email to acknowledge the complaint but failed to discuss the complaint with the resident as it said it would. Had it done this then it could have ensured that it understood the specific issues that it needed to investigate. This was a further failing in its complaint handling.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address all of the issues raised by the resident in particular the resident’s concerns about the standard of the ground’s maintenance. It also failed to explain within its response how it monitored its grounds maintenance services to re-assure the resident that it was doing all it could to ensure the service met the relevant standard now and in the future. This was a failing but also a missed opportunity to put matters right at a much earlier stage. The complaint handling failings caused the resident time and effort having to pursue her complaint further.
Furthermore, the evidence shows that the resident had put the landlord on notice that she believed that the road had been adopted by the council in or around July 2022. The landlord appropriately explained the resident’s liability in respect of the service charges within its complaint responses but failed to show that it had fully investigated whether anything had changed and whether the road had been adopted at that point. It would have been reasonable for it to have investigated and clarified this within its complaint responses. That it did not was a missed opportunity to resolve matters at this stage.
The timeline shows that the landlord’s response to the stage 2 request made on 15 August 2022 took 90 days (13 December 2022). This delay was unreasonable and outside of its own policy and the Code. The landlord however did acknowledge its delays and offered £90 compensation. This Service does not however consider that £90 reflects the time, effort and inconvenience caused to the resident by all the failings this Service has identified in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In July 2023, the Ombudsman published a special report which identified that the landlord had failed to provide a satisfactory complaint handling service to its residents. Recommendations were made to carry out a review of its complaint policy and retrain its staff. The landlord has since completed the training roll out, with yearly refresher training scheduled. Therefore, this report has not made an order for the landlord to take this action, as it has already put into practice what would have been ordered as part of this investigation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to investigate whether its ground maintenance service was meeting the correct standard. It also failed to show that it had done all that it could to ensure that it was still responsible to maintain all of the area that it was charging its residents maintenance for.
The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s complaints within its own timescales. It failed to address all the issues raised by the resident. It failed to investigate the complaint appropriately demonstrated by the fact it did not flag up the monitoring of the ground’s maintenance. It offered compensation for its delays in its complaint handling, but this did not reflect the detriment caused by all the complaint failings identified by this Service.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £560 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £200 compensation if not already paid as offered in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 responses.
  2. £200 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about service charges.
  3. £160 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The landlord is ordered to do the following within 6 weeks:
1. Write to the resident to confirm how it will monitor its ground maintenance contract to ensure it meets the required service standard. A copy should be sent to this Service also within 6 weeks.