The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202211400)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211400

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

14 August 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. This complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Communication about increased service charges.
    2. Increase of emergency lighting maintenance costs.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a leaseholder of a flat owned by the landlord. There are 16 flats in the building.
  2. The resident pays service charges on a monthly basis. For any given year these are estimated and a charge levied on the estimated charges applicable. At the end of each account year the landlord charges the resident a proportion of the actual costs incurred during that year.
  3. In July 2022, the resident received the final account bill for the year 2021-22. In that bill was a charge for “emergency lighting maintenance”. The estimated cost for that element was £50, however the final cost was £142.34. The resident sent an email to the landlord asking for an explanation of the increase.
  4. The resident sent 2 further emails to the landlord asking for this information but did not receive a response. On 17 August 2023, the resident raised a complaint in respect of the charges. On 26 August 2023, the landlord sent a response to the resident stating that works were required to the emergency lighting system. An invoice was provided to the resident in respect of those works.
  5. On the same day, the resident requested the landlord escalate the complaint as they did not believe the response was a sufficient explanation. The resident sent 2 emails chasing a response on 6 September 2022 and 6 November 2022. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman to request assistance. The landlord acknowledged the escalation and apologised for the delay.
  6. On 5 December 2022, the landlord visited the resident to discuss the complaint, among other topics. At this stage the landlord agreed that the information given in respect of the works was insufficient. The landlord sent its final response to the resident on 7 December 2022. That response:
    1. Apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
    2. Provided a breakdown of the works completed for which the service charge was applied, along with the original quote from the contractor.
    3. Offered £290 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £130 for distress and inconvenience in following up the concerns.
      2. £100 under the right to repair scheme.
      3. £60 in recognition of the delayed response to the complaint.
  7. The resident escalated their complaint to this service as they remain dissatisfied with the level of information given. The resident also believes that the charge itself may be due to negligence by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction and is governed by the Scheme. The Ombudsman must determine whether a complaint comes within their jurisdiction. We seek to resolve disputes wherever possible but cannot investigate complaints that fall outside of this. In deciding whether a complaint falls within our jurisdiction, we carefully consider all the evidence provided by the parties and the circumstances of the case.
  2. Paragraph 42(e) of the 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”.
  3. While part of the complaint is about communication in respect of the increase, we cannot investigate whether the increase itself is fair or reasonable. 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 complainant may wish to seek free and independent legal advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) about how to proceed with a case.
  4. Taking this into account, we are unable to investigate complaint 1(b) above in respect of the level of service charges.

Communication

  1. Under section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, leaseholders have the right to request certain information about service charges. The relevant regulations state that a leaseholder may “inspect accounts, receipts and any other documents that are relevant to the service charge”. The leaseholder must make this request in writing and the landlord must provide this information, or the facilities to inspect this information, within one month of the request.
  2. The resident’s original concern was the unexplained increase in a particular element of the charge. The landlord responded within the relevant time but only provided an invoice related to the charge. That invoice simply said “work carried out as per estimate” and confirmed the overall charge as £2,277.36. It should have been clear to the landlord that this was not sufficient information to satisfy its obligations under the relevant legislation as it did not contain any information about the actual work. It should have provided the estimate to which the invoice referred, as it did at the end of the stage 2 complaint.
  3. In their complaint to this service, the resident said that they are concerned that the maintenance work was not being done correctly prior to the increased fees. They believe this may be why there ended up being additional work required. We have received the same documents sent to the resident confirming the reason for the works and relevant receipts and information. From the information received, there is no evidence of maladministration in respect of repairs to the emergency lighting. Whether the increase was down to mismanagement, or other actions taken by the landlord, would be outside our jurisdiction as it would itself lead to a determination on whether the increase was reasonable.
  4. As the landlord did not provide all relevant information at the earliest stage there has been a failing. However, the landlord offered £130 in respect of this failing. Taking into account that this was more than the charge levied on the resident, and the level of disruption, we find that the amount offered was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s policy provides the following relevant information:
    1. It will issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
    2. It will issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
    3. Prior to escalation it will attempt to reach an amicable resolution with the complainant, otherwise it will escalate without delay.
  2. The landlord received the complaint on 17 August 2022 and responded on 26 August 2022. This was reasonable and within their policy. The resident requested an escalation on 26 August 2022 but this was not acknowledged by the landlord. The landlord did not contact the resident, either to confirm the escalation or to attempt a resolution, until 6 November 2022. This was unreasonable. While we understand the landlord had difficulty with volumes of work and a backlog of complaints, it should still have contacted the resident promptly to acknowledge their request. This would have helped to manage the resident’s expectations.
  3. The landlord visited the resident to discuss the complaint, along with other matters, and kept comprehensive notes of the meeting. We consider this good practice when a number of different, or complex, concerns have been raised and a face-to-face meeting would help both parties understand the situation.
  4. The landlord accepted in its final response that it did not respond to the stage 2 complaint as quickly as it should have. It offered £60 in recognition of the delay. We consider this offer proportionate to the failing and in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines. Therefore, we have determined that a reasonable offer of redress has been made.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the complaint about communication.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should confirm that it has paid the amount offered in its final response or re-offer the amount if it has not been paid.
  2. The landlord should review its processes in respect of providing information about service charges. It should ensure that information provided to residents is sufficient to comply with its obligations under Section 22 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and allows residents to understand the charges.