Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202203908)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203908

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV)

30 January 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 complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about her service charges.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s property sale.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 2–bedroom, third–floor flat in a 4-storey block and the resident is a shared owner. The resident advised the landlord that she experiences poor mental health.
The resident’s landlord is a housing association. The head lease for the property states that the superior landlord is a local authority and the housing association (referred to in the remainder of this report as ‘the landlord’) has a sub-lease in relation to the property. The head lease also names a management company which is responsible for providing services such as cleaning and maintaining the communal areas of the resident’s building. The management company’s functions are carried out on its behalf by a managing agent.
The managing agent sends an application for payment of service charges to the landlord and the landlord then requests payment of the service charges from its residents.
The landlord’s lease states that after receiving notice of the resident’s wish to sell the property, the landlord has 2 months to identify a buyer. This period is referred to in the lease as the ‘nomination period’. If the landlord has not identified a buyer within the nomination period, the resident can sell the property on the open market.

Summary of events

On 17 August 2021, a surveying company produced a valuation report for the property on behalf of the resident in relation to the sale of her home. The report stated that the valuation was valid for 3 months from 6 September 2021.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm the sale price for the resident’s share of the property and to provide details of the sales process. The letter stated that if the landlord was unable to find a suitable buyer within an 8-week ‘nomination period’, the resident would be able to sell the property on the open market using an estate agent.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 January 2022 to ask about the outcome of a recent viewing in connection with the sale of the property. She also asked whether she could place the property with an estate agent as the property had been with the landlord for 3 months.
The landlord replied to the resident on 24 January 2022 and explained that the viewer was very interested in buying the property and the landlord would advise the prospective buyer of the next steps.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 February 2022 to advise that a financial assessment had been approved for the buyer of her property and the financial advisor would now process the buyer’s mortgage. The landlord wrote again to the resident on 25 February 2022 and advised that the buyer’s mortgage offer had been approved.
On 28 February 2022, the resident submitted an online enquiry form asking why her service charge account (referred to by the resident as the ‘rent account’) was in arrears as she had paid every month.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 March 2022 advising that the management pack had been sent to the buyer’s solicitor. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 27 April 2022 stating that it was expecting to receive the buyer’s mortgage offer in the next 2 days. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 20 May 2022 asking her to contact the landlord urgently to discuss the sale of the property.
On 25 May 2022, the resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord stating that she had been trying to find out since February 2022 why £800 had been added to her service charge account and the account was now £100 in arrears. She pointed out that she had contacted the landlord’s ‘accounts team’ twice about the matter but had not received a reply.
On the same day (25 May 2022), the resident contacted this Service to report that the landlord had refused to allow her to place the property with an estate agent despite the landlord having the property for longer than 2 months. The resident also stated that she had been incorrectly advised by the landlord that the buyer’s mortgage had been approved when this was not the case. Finally, the resident reported that over £800 had been added to her service charge account and the landlord had not advised her that the account was in arrears. She had only noticed this in February 2022 when she logged into her online account. The resident stated that she had submitted a complaint and phoned the landlord in May 2022 but had not received a reply.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman again on 3 June 2022 and repeated her concerns about the sale of her property and the sum that she reported had been added to her service charge account.
The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 5 June 2022 and requested it to consider the resident’s complaint and respond. The landlord wrote to the resident on the next day to confirm it had received her complaint and would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 16 June 2022, in which it stated that its service charge team had contacted the resident and would need a further 10 working days to provide the information requested by the resident. The landlord accepted there had been a delay in the response from its service charge team and apologised for this. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered the resident £75 compensation for its failure.
The landlord wrote to the buyer’s solicitor on 22 June 2022 to ask whether they were almost at the point of exchanging contracts. The solicitor replied on the same day and explained that they had requested various information, such as the management pack, on 31 May 2022. The buyer’s solicitor stated that they were still awaiting the information and had received an email from the resident’s solicitor on 8 June 2022 noting that the resident was in dispute with the landlord over service charges. The resident’s solicitor said it would need agreement before paying the arrears on completion of the property sale.
On 24 and 28 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident requesting a meeting to discuss her complaint. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 30 June 2022 and included the following information:
1. The landlord explained that residents receive an annual estimate of service charges. If there is an overspend, residents are contacted and have 6 months in which to contest or challenge any charges.
2. The landlord attached a copy of the notice it had sent out regarding the service charges and the detailed audit of costs. The landlord stated that according to its records, no other residents had queried the charges or suggested there were errors.
3. The landlord stated that it had investigated the charges and concluded that the charges were accurate.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the buyer’s solicitor and advised that it was in the process of resolving the service charges that the resident had disputed and the property sale had been placed on hold until the matter was resolved.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 and 3 July 2022 to challenge the level of service charges and to confirm that she had paid the service charges to allow the property sale to proceed. She stated that the landlord had not provided any information about the managing agent’s fees which were described in the service charges as ‘third-party provider’ costs. The resident added that a buyer had been found in January 2022 and although the property had been underpriced at the time, she proceeded as she needed a quick sale.
The landlord replied to the resident on 5 July 2022 and confirmed that it would investigate the resident’s concerns regarding the third-party provider’s costs.
On 12 July 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask when the completion of the property sale would take place. The landlord replied to the resident on 19 July 2022 and advised that it was chasing the managing agent for the information regarding the service charges and was still awaiting a reply. Internal emails sent by the landlord’s staff show that the landlord was concerned about the resident’s welfare and had arranged for a member of its staff to ring the resident to check on her well-being. The landlord also made various enquiries with the managing agents to obtain information about the costs included in the service charges.
On 2 August 2022, the landlord’s solicitor confirmed to the resident’s solicitor that the property valuation had been extended to 31 August 2022. It added that if the completion of the sale did not occur before this date, a ‘desktop’ valuation would be required.
On 8 August 2022, the resident’s partner wrote to the landlord as he said the resident was unwell. He stated that, according to the buyer, the property sale had been placed ‘on hold’ due to the disputed service charge amount of £831. He added that placing the sale on hold was “illegal” as all outstanding sums would only be due on completion of the sale. He also advised that the resident had already paid the outstanding sum. Finally, he asked who had authorised placing the property sale on hold.
The landlord replied to the resident’s partner on 9 August 2022 and advised that it was unaware that anyone had halted the sales process. However, the landlord said it was aware that the resident’s conveyancing solicitor had said it was waiting for the service charge query to be resolved before proceeding. The landlord confirmed that any outstanding amounts would be settled as part of the completion of the sale.
During August 2022, the landlord’s records show that it made various internal enquiries to investigate who had given the instruction to place the property sale on hold. The landlord also wrote to the managing agent during August to chase the breakdown of the service charges requested by the resident and requested advice from its legal team in the event the managing agent failed to respond.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2022 to advise her that it had escalated the service charge enquiry to a senior level in order to obtain the information she had requested.
The resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord on 25 August 2022 to confirm that the resident had paid the outstanding service charges. On the same day, the buyer’s solicitor wrote to the landlord to advise that the buyer’s mortgage offer would only be valid until 11 September 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 to ask for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. After an exchange of emails with the resident, the landlord emailed the resident on the same day (13 September 2022) to confirm that it would escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 September 2022 and explained that it had closed the stage one complaint following its reply on 16 June 2022. The resident replied on 22 September 2022 and stated the following:
1. She questioned why the complaint had been closed as she had not received a response from the landlord to resolve the issue.
2. She had not received an explanation regarding the £800 service charge fee in the 2020/21 accounts. Her service charges were usually about £1,400 but in 2020/21 had increased to £2,300.
3. She had been incorrectly advised by the landlord that the buyer’s mortgage had been approved even though this was not the case. The incorrect information had prompted the resident to resign from her employment.
4. Someone had agreed to buy the property in January 2022 and yet the sale had still not been completed.
5. The valuation was out-of-date as property prices had changed.
6. The landlord had prevented her from using an estate agent to sell the property.
7. The resident stated that she had been hospitalised in December 2021 and had been unwell until the end of January 2022.
The landlord’s records show that the property sale was completed on 11 October 2022.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 reply, in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord acknowledged that a member of its staff had mistakenly ticked a box on its system to show that the buyer’s mortgage had been approved when this had not been the case. This had prompted an automated email to be generated. The landlord apologised for the error and confirmed it would use the case for training purposes to avoid such errors occurring in the future.
2. Although the landlord accepted than an inputting error had been made, it stated that its staff would not have advised the resident to resign from her employment. Therefore, it did not accept responsibility for her decision to resign.
3. The landlord accepted that one of its staff had instructed the buyer’s solicitor on 30 June 2022 to put the case on hold as they believed this had been requested by the resident. As soon as the landlord became aware of the misunderstanding in August 2022, it advised the resident’s solicitor to continue the sales process. The landlord apologised for this error and concluded that it was likely to have caused a delay in the process of about 2 weeks.
4. The landlord stated that it could not find any evidence that it had prevented the resident from using an estate agent to market the property. It confirmed that residents were entitled to list their property with an estate agent after the nomination period had expired.
5. The landlord confirmed that £831.52 had been added to the resident’s service charge account in October 2021 and this was a balancing charge for the 2020/21 service charge account. The landlord attached a copy of the letter that had been sent to the resident on 27 September 2021 to explain the charge. It also attached the managing agent’s budget for 2020/21 and an application for payment in relation to the resident’s property that had been sent by the managing agent to the landlord.
6. The landlord apologised for the issues that had occurred and for any distress, frustration and inconvenience caused. It upheld the complaint and offered £50 redress for the service failure. This was in addition to the £75 it had offered at stage one and therefore this brought the total compensation offered to £125.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (24 October 2022) to say that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She repeated that she had not received an explanation about the £800 charge that had been added to her account. She stated that she had not instructed anyone to place the sale process on hold and had repeatedly asked the landlord whether she could use an estate agent.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 26 April 2023 and advised that it had offered further redress of £425 to the resident in relation to its complaints handling because:
1. It acknowledged that the quality of its stage one reply should have been better.
2. It had responded to the stage 2 complaint outside of its advertised timescale.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her email dated 22 September 2022, the resident stated that her service charges were usually about £1,400 but in 2020/21 had increased to £2,300. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints which concern the level of rent or service charges or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. Therefore, this Service has not investigated whether the amount charged by the landlord was reasonable. The resident has the opportunity to apply to the First Tier Tribunal, which has the expertise and authority to consider the reasonableness of service charges. The Ombudsman has, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for information about the service charges.
The resident’s partner wrote to the landlord on 8 August 2022 and stated that the landlord had acted illegally by instructing the buyer’s solicitor to place the property purchase on hold. The Ombudsman cannot make a definitive or binding ruling on whether the landlord acted illegally, for example, in relation to the lease or conveyancing law. Such a decision would be a matter for the courts or tribunal. The Ombudsman has, however, investigated whether the landlord’s handling of the sale of the property was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for information about her service charges

On 28 February 2022, the resident sent the landlord an online enquiry form asking why her service charge account was in arrears. The resident then submitted a stage one complaint on 25 May 2022 stating that she had not received a reply to her enquiry about the service charges. It was inappropriate that the landlord had failed to reply to the resident’s initial enquiry sent in February 2022 regarding her account. The landlord’s lack of response had prompted the resident to submit a formal complaint and to contact the Ombudsman. The resident was clearly surprised and concerned that her account was in arrears and therefore the landlord should have responded promptly to address these concerns.
In her complaint dated 25 May 2022, the resident questioned why the landlord had added £800 to her account in October 2021, which had caused her account to fall into arrears. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 16 June 2022 and advised the resident that its service charge team was looking into the enquiry and would need an additional 10 working days to conclude its investigation. The landlord accepted there had been a delay in its service charge team responding and offered the resident £75 compensation. The quality of the landlord’s complaint response is covered later in this assessment under the landlord’s complaints handling. However, it was right that the landlord had recognised its failure to respond to the resident’s enquiry, apologised for this and offered financial redress.
The £75 compensation offered by the landlord was within the range of sums specified in its compensation policy for situations where a resident has had to chase the landlord several times due to a period of delay. The sum offered by the landlord was therefore reasonable compensation at that stage to recognise the landlord’s lack of response.
On 30 June 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it was in the process of resolving the disputed service charges and provided her with a brief explanation of the service charge process. The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 and 3 July 2022 and confirmed she had paid the outstanding service charge balance so that it would not affect the property sale. However, she advised the landlord that she had still not received the information about the service charges. The landlord replied on 5 July 2022 and said it would look into the matter. The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response during July to September 2022 and escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 13 September 2022.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 24 October 2022, in which it explained that the £831.52 queried by the resident had been added to her account in October 2021 as a ‘balancing charge’ for the 2020/21 service charges. The landlord attached a copy of the letter that had been sent to the resident on 27 September 2021 regarding the charge. It also attached the managing agent’s 2020/21 budget and application for payment it had sent to the landlord.
The evidence shows that during the period July to September 2022, the landlord chased the managing agent on various occasions for the required information. It also requested advice from its legal team on possible action if the agent failed to provide the information.
In March 2022, the Ombudsman produced a spotlight report called ‘landlords’ engagement with private freeholders and managing agents’. The report states that this Service expects landlords to be proactive in pursuing managing agents and freeholders to discharge their responsibilities. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord was reasonably proactive in pursuing the managing agent for the information. The evidence shows that the situation was made more complicated because there had been a change of managing agents and some of the information was unavailable.
The Ombudsman’s view, however, is that the delay in obtaining information from the managing agent was exacerbated by the landlord’s lack of clarity in terms of the information it requested from the managing agent. For example, the landlord did not ask the managing agent to identify the specific costs that had led to the £831.52 increase in the service charges, even though this was the focus of the resident’s enquiry. The result was that the managing agent wrote to the landlord on 23 August 2022 and requested clarity on the information the landlord was seeking.
The resident had spent time and effort writing to the landlord on various occasions since first raising the matter in February 2022. Therefore, it was clearly important to her to obtain a satisfactory explanation about the charge. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not been clearer about the information needed from the managing agent in order to answer the resident’s enquiry more effectively.
Following the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 24 October 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord on the same day to repeat that she had not received an explanation regarding the £800 charge that had been added to her account. Having reviewed the information sent to the resident as part of its stage 2 reply, the Ombudsman’s view is that the information sent to the resident was unclear and did not address her specific concerns.
The resident had repeatedly asked the landlord for information about the additional £831.52 on her service charge account and although the landlord had advised her that this was a ‘balancing charge’, it did not provide a breakdown of the charge. Furthermore, the landlord had not explained in its stage 2 reply how the managing agent’s 2020/21 budget and application for payment related to the £831.52 sum. It was unreasonable that the landlord had not provided the resident with a clearer explanation of the service charges she had queried.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord did not have responsibility for the managing agent and therefore this created challenges in terms of obtaining information. Nevertheless, it was incumbent on the landlord to ensure it fully understood the information required to address the resident’s query and that it was specific in terms of the information it requested from the managing agent. It was also important for the landlord to ensure the information it presented to the resident was clear and, as far as possible, addressed her concerns .
The Ombudsman has found there was a service failure on the part of the landlord because it failed to request the appropriate information from the managing agent to enable it to respond to the resident’s specific enquiry. It also failed to explain clearly how the information it sent to the resident addressed her enquiry. In order to put things right, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £50. This is within the range of financial redress specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been a service failure.
The landlord’s lack of clarity in its communications exacerbated the delay in receiving the information from the managing agent and added to the resident’s frustration regarding her service charge enquiry.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s property sale

The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 October 2021 to confirm that it would look for a buyer in relation to the resident’s property. The landlord stated that if it was unable to find a buyer within the 8-week nomination period, the resident could sell the property on the open market. On 23 January 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask about a recent viewing that had taken place and asked whether she could place the property on the open market. The landlord replied on 24 January 2022 and stated that the viewer was very interested in buying the property and therefore it would advise this person about the next steps in the sales process.
As the landlord had identified a prospective buyer, it was reasonable for it to progress the matter with this person and update the resident of the action it was taking. However, the landlord did not answer the resident’s question about whether she could place the property with an estate agent. This was unreasonable as the resident was entitled to ask the question given that the property had been with the landlord for approximately 3 months. The landlord’s failure to provide the information meant that the resident was uncertain of her options if, for example, the prospective buyer chose not to proceed with the purchase.
On 22 September 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that the landlord had prevented her from listing the property with an estate agent. The landlord responded to this point in its stage 2 reply on 24 October 2022 and stated that it could find no evidence that it had prevented the resident from listing the property with an estate agent.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence showing that the landlord refused or prevented the resident from listing the property with an estate agent. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not use its stage 2 reply to acknowledge its failure to address the resident’s earlier question about placing the property with an estate agent.
The Ombudsman is unable to give a determination on whether the resident had a legal entitlement to place the property with an estate agent and whether she experienced any financial detriment in relation to this. Producing a definitive or binding ruling on the interpretation of the lease would be a matter for the courts or tribunal. However, the resident’s emails to the landlord and to this Service show that the landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s question added to her anxiety and frustration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the property sale. The Ombudsman has therefore ordered the landlord to pay compensation to recognise this.
The amount ordered by the Ombudsman regarding the landlord’s failure to address the resident’s question is £100. This amount is within the range of financial redress specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where the resident has experienced inconvenience, time and trouble as a result of a landlord’s failure.
The resident stated in her email dated 22 September 2022 that the landlord had incorrectly advised her that the buyer’s mortgage had been approved and this had prompted her to resign from her employment. In its stage 2 reply, the landlord accepted that it had given incorrect information regarding the approval of the buyer’s mortgage. The landlord explained that the problem had been caused by an inputting error by a member of its staff.
The landlord apologised for its error and confirmed that it would use the case for training purposes to avoid similar errors occurring in the future. However, the landlord stated that it had not advised the resident to resign from her employment.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its error, apologise to the resident and confirm it would use the case for training purposes. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use the complaints process to acknowledge where things have gone wrong and learn from outcomes.
In terms of the resident’s statement that the landlord had advised her to resign from her employment, this Service is unable to investigate employment matters. However, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the approval of the buyer’s mortgage and has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord advised the resident to resign.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that due to a ‘misunderstanding’ the landlord had instructed the buyer’s solicitor on 30 June 2022 to place the sale on hold. The landlord stated that the misunderstanding had likely caused a delay of about 2 weeks in relation to the sales process. The resident disputed that she had advised the landlord to place the sale on hold. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence, such as file notes or emails, to substantiate the landlord’s assertion that there had been a misunderstanding between its staff and the resident.
This Service would expect the landlord to keep a record of important conversations with the resident and of any decisions resulting from the conversations. As a matter of good practice, the landlord should also have written to the resident to confirm the outcome of any discussions it had held with her, particularly in relation to placing the sale on hold. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not write to the resident to confirm that the property sale had been placed on hold. As the landlord had failed to notify the resident of the decision, the resident’s partner wrote to the landlord on 8 August 2022 to ask why the sale had been placed on hold.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 3 July 2022 to advise that she had paid the outstanding service charge. Therefore, at this point the landlord should have advised the various parties that the property sale was no longer on hold. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to do this having been aware that the sales process was on hold. The landlord should have been aware that a dispute about service charges would be dealt with as part of the completion of sale and therefore should not delay the sale of the property.
The landlord wrote to the resident’s partner on 9 August 2022 and stated it was unaware that anyone had placed the sale of the property on hold. This was an example of poor communication among the landlord’s staff as it had written to the buyer’s solicitor on 30 June 2022 stating that the sales process was on hold. Furthermore, in its stage 2 reply, the landlord stated that the misunderstanding had added about 2 weeks’ delay to the process. However, the evidence shows that the sales process was on hold from 30 June 2022 until at least the second week of August 2022 and therefore lasted about 6 weeks.
In its stage 2 reply, the landlord apologised for the misunderstanding and offered the resident £50 compensation. The Ombudsman welcomes that the landlord recognised the need to compensate the resident for the delay caused as a result of placing the sales process on hold. However, this Service does not consider the amount offered to be proportionate to the level of detriment caused. The landlord was aware from the resident’s emails that she was seeking a quick sale and was anxious about the time it was taking to complete the sale. Therefore, the delay of about 6 weeks added to the resident’s anxiety and frustration.
The Ombudsman has therefore ordered compensation of £300, which it considers reflects the detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s instruction to place the sale on hold. It also reflects the landlord’s failure to advise the various parties that the sale was no longer on hold when it became aware that the resident had paid the service charge.
The sum ordered is within the range specified in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. The amount takes into account that the landlord made some attempt to put things right but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by this Service.
Part of the resident’s complaint outlined in her email dated 22 September 2022 was that the delay in the sales process led to the property valuation being out-of-date as property prices had changed. The landlord confirmed that it had extended the period the valuation was valid. This Service would not be best placed or have the expertise to consider the validity of the valuation. Such matters are best resolved through the courts or tribunal. On this basis, although there is evidence of failing on the landlord’s behalf, compensation has been considered for distress and inconvenience, rather than any possible losses incurred by the resident due to the property valuation that was used for the sale.
In summary, the Ombudsman has found there was maladministration by the landlord because:
1. It failed to answer the resident’s question about placing the property with an estate agent.
2. It did not properly communicate the decision to place the property sale on hold.
3. It did not advise the relevant parties in a timely manner that the sale could resume after the resident had paid the outstanding service charges.
Compensation of £400 has been ordered. This is made up of £100 for the landlord’s failure to answer the resident’s enquiry about placing the property with an estate agent and £300 for its poor communication in terms of placing the property sale on hold.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. The landlord will respond to stage one complaints within 10 working days and at stage 2 it will respond within 20 working days. If it cannot meet these timescales it will contact the resident and agree new timescales.
The resident submitted an online complaint form to the landlord on 25 May 2022. The landlord did not acknowledge this within its advertised timescale of 5 working days. It only did so on 6 June 2022 after it had been requested to respond by the Ombudsman. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge the complaint was a shortcoming as this prompted the resident to contact this Service on 3 June 2022.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 16 June 2022, which was 14 working days after the resident submitted the online complaint form. It was therefore a shortcoming that the landlord took longer than its advertised timescale of 10 working days to respond.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the quality of the landlord’s stage one reply was poor because it did not offer a resolution to the service charge query that the resident had raised. The reply also did not make it clear that if the resident remained dissatisfied she could ask for her complaint to be considered at stage 2 of the process. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code states that at the completion of stage one, landlords must confirm to residents details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is dissatisfied with the response.
After exchanging various emails with the landlord during July and August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on 13 September 2022 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 24 October 2022, which was 28 working days after the resident’s request to escalate the complaint. The landlord did not take the opportunity in its stage 2 reply to apologise for the delay in responding. This was inappropriate as the time taken was not within the landlord’s advertised timescale of 20 working days.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 26 April 2023 and advised that it had offered the resident additional financial redress of £425 in relation to its complaints handling. It acknowledged the poor quality of the stage one reply and the delay in replying to the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
While it is positive that the landlord reconsidered its position and made an offer of redress, it is not clear why the landlord did not make this offer when considering the complaint within its own complaint procedure, rather than some 6 months after its stage two reply.
The Ombudsman is unable to consider the landlord’s offer as reasonable redress because the offer was made after the Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation. Paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may determine the investigation of a complaint immediately if satisfied that [the landlord]… has offered redress to the complainant prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. This will result in a finding of reasonable redress”.
The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was maladministration in terms of its complaints handling due to the quality of the stage one reply and the delay in replying at stage 2. However, this Service has not ordered additional compensation as it considers the £425 already offered by the landlord to be proportionate to put things right in relation to the failings in its complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for information about her service charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s property sale.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord did not request the appropriate information from the managing agent to enable it to answer the resident’s service charge query satisfactorily. The landlord did not explain clearly to the resident how the information it sent with its stage 2 reply directly answered her query.
The landlord did not address the resident’s question about whether she could place her property with an estate agent. The landlord did not formally advise the resident that the sale had been placed on hold. It also failed to notify the relevant parties that the sale could resume after the resident had paid the outstanding service charges.
The quality of the stage one reply was poor as it did not offer a resolution to the resident’s service charge query and did not advise her she could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied. There was a delay in sending the stage 2 response and the landlord failed to acknowledge this in the stage 2 reply. Although the landlord offered additional financial redress for its complaint handling failings, it did so after the complaint had been accepted by the Ombudsman for investigation.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £50 for its handling of the resident’s service charge enquiry.
3. Pay the resident a total of £400 in relation to its handling of the property sale (this sum includes the £50 already offered by the landlord).

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £75 offered in its stage one reply and the £425 for complaints handling if these sums have not already been paid.