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

Muir Group Housing Association Limited (202201833)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201833

Muir Group Housing Association Limited

31 March 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 about:
    1. The landlord’s response to a complaint about communal cleaning provision.
    2. The landlord not providing a breakdown of service charges.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a ground floor flat in a mixed tenure block. The resident has an authorised representative dealing with her complaint. Throughout this report, the resident and representative will both be referred to as the resident.
  2. The rent is determined by the terms of the tenancy agreement. There is a weekly charge for rent, plus a ‘fixed’ service charge.
  3. The landlord reviewed the service charges and sent a letter to all residents on 6 May 2021. Following the review, service charges were equally shared amongst the residents, and this resulted in some resident’s charges increasing.
  4. The resident said that since the landlord had provided a cost breakdown of service charges, it had allowed them to calculate the costagainst the service provided. The resident lodged a formal complaint on 6 July 2021 stating that the service charge for the cleaning services, was not value for money.
  5. The complaint was taken through the landlord’s complaints process, and the final response was provided on 5 October 2021. The landlord advised that as part of the complaint investigation, it had obtained comparable quotes, and said that the cleaning contract no longer offered value for money. As a result of this, it entered a re-procurement process. The outcome letter stated that:
    1. It had taken appropriate action to the concerns raised.
    2. It would be unreasonable to assess value for money of a service retrospectively, as it would have been determined at point of procurement.
    3. Was not reasonable or possible to find quotes for the previous six years.
    4. The resident had not been able to demonstrate how he had been financially impacted.
    5. It was unable to accept the position that the resident had been subjected to past and present financial loss.
    6. Considerations were given to the fact that no concerns had been raised by any residents, that have not been resolved.
  6. As a continuation of the complaint communications, the resident asked for a breakdown of the fixed service charges they paid. The landlord advised that the information provided in the previous year was a ‘one-off’ exercise and declined the request. The landlord said that it had no legal obligation to provide this information.
  7. The resident brought their complaint to the Ombudsman stating the landlord had yet to re-procure a new cleaning service, six months after agreeing the current contract was not value for money. The resident remains dissatisfied that the landlord has removed the process of providing a breakdown of fixed service charges and wants the landlord to issue them to enable scrutiny.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion ’concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase’. However, this Service will investigate the landlord’s response to a request to provide a breakdown of service charges.

The landlord’s response to a complaint about communal cleaning provision.

  1. As part of the complaint response, the landlord agreed that the cleaning services were no longer demonstrating value for money. It advised that it had obtained two comparable quotes to determine this. The landlord also advised that lessons learnt, and following feedback from the resident, they would:
    1. Ensure the new cleaning contract provided an indication of the number of hours in the specification.
    2. Ensure all Tenancy Service Officers (TSO) understand the cleaning specification and service delivery.
    3. Consider developing a cleaning contract review programme.

The landlord responded to the concerns raised by the resident and entered a formal procurement process in September 2021, this was a year earlier than scheduled. This process only requires the landlord to carry out consultation with its leaseholders. However, the landlord consulted with both the leaseholders and the residents. This Service considers this to be more than reasonable, as it exceeds the landlord’s obligation.

  1. The landlord wrote to the residents and leaseholders to advise them of the consultation process and periods and invited them to consult on the proposals put forward. The landlord kept the resident updated throughout the process, and hand delivered a letter to advise him of the new contract. This Service considers this more than reasonable, and demonstrates a positive complaint culture.
  2. In summary, the landlord’s response to the complaint about the communal cleaning provision, was handled reasonably. Section 20 of the Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 sets out a three-stage consultation process. The landlord can do more than the standard statutory process, but they are simply not permitted to do less. This process, however, is only applicable to those paying a ‘variable’ service charge and not ‘fixed’. The landlord included and updated the resident throughout the process, and as part of the feedback, included the number of hours in the new cleaning specification. A new cleaning contract was procured, a year earlier than scheduled and was in place on 14 June 2022.

The landlord not providing a breakdown of service charges.

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the terms of the contract include a fixed service charge, which includes communal cleaning. The annual review letter advises the resident what they pay as a breakdown of rent, plus a fixed service charge.
  2. The landlord advised the resident, that it does not have to provide a breakdown of fixed service charges, as it is a fixed amount that is part of the overall total of the rent and does not vary over the year. The resident questioned this, as the landlord’s website advises this information is available upon request.
  3. This Service has reviewed the information referred to on the landlord’s website, which is titled ‘Understanding rent and Fixed service charges’. Page four of the landlord’s factsheet, answers the following question,
    1.  how do I know exactly what I pay for each service? and states: ‘we can provide you with a breakdown of the estimated service charges that you pay, upon request’.

This factsheet further explains, ‘The service charge that you pay will always be estimated rather than exact because the amounts are calculated based on estimates and charged by a mechanism which is called a ‘fixed service charge’.

The landlord has provided the level of service charge, in the service charge breakdown, which is reasonable and all it is obliged to do.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to a complaint about communal cleaning provision. This is because the landlord acknowledged the concerns raised by the resident about the cleaning provision and carried out an investigation to establish if the contract remained value for money. It then took action to address this and made sure residents and leaseholders were kept informed.

In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord not providing a breakdown of service charges. The landlord fulfilled its obligation in providing a breakdown of what the resident will pay as a fixed service charge and included it within the breakdown of the total rent.