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

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202225629)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225629

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

20 October 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 handling of the resident’s concerns about the lighting in communal areas around her property.
    2. The landlord’s administration of service charges.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is the leaseholder and the property is a flat in a purpose built block. The landlord is the freeholder. The resident pays service charges for services provided by the landlord, including lighting of communal areas.
  2. The resident stated she first raised an issue with the communal lighting outside her flat in November 2021. She said that where the lights had always been activated by a sensor, they previously would only come on at night. She said this had been changed so the lights came on throughout the day, and she was concerned about energy usage and costs incurred.
  3. The landlord recorded a stage one complaint on 24 October 2022. On 29 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and advised her complaint was also about the apportionment of service charges, as she was unclear how these were calculated and she was concerned about costs incurred. The resident expressed concern about an outstanding balance on her account for unpaid service charges, due to an error with a direct debit. She was unhappy the landlord had not notified her of this earlier and the balance had accrued over time.
  4. The landlord provided a response regarding the service charges on 8 November 2022. It said it had sent copies of electricity invoices to the resident, alongside a breakdown of how this had been charged. This showed that the total costs incurred for electricity were £8,790.05 and the total charged to the resident in this example was £203.26.
  5. It provided a stage one response on 10 November 2022, stating that the resident contacted it to question a bill for communal lighting in December 2021. It apologised for several missed call backs and poor customer service, ‘examples of failures to properly communicate, a lack of accountability and accurate reporting’. It offered the resident £75 compensation, and advised an appointment was booked to fix the lights on 23 November 2022.
  6. Unhappy with this response, the resident escalated her complaint on 17 January 2023. She remained dissatisfied that the communal lights had not been fixed and was unhappy because she felt the landlord had breached data protection rules by sharing information with her MP. The resident also complained that she did not received contact from the landlord’s finance department and did not have a clear understanding whether there were any service charges outstanding.
  7. On 13 February 2023, the landlord’s finance department advised the resident it had recalculated her outstanding balance, adjusted for an error it had made previously. It advised it had written off 2 payments of unpaid direct debits, and it would be willing to support the resident with a payment plan for the amount outstanding.
  8. The stage two complaint response was provided on 14 February 2023. The landlord apologised for not addressing all the issues the resident raised previously. It stated an operative had attended to inspect the lights, and explained they worked by dimming when not required and illuminating brighter when presence was sensed. On this basis, the landlord said the lights were working as they should and therefore were not faulty. It noted that the finance team had addressed the resident’s concerns about outstanding service charges via email. Additionally, the landlord stated it did not feel it had breached data protection rules by sharing information with the resident’s MP. The landlord offered £100 compensation to the resident for the distress and inconvenience and time taken to chase her complaint.
  9. The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 8 March 2023. In more recent contact with this Service, she said in order to put things right, she would like the lights to be changed so they are only activated at night, for the landlord to refund £300 it previously stated it would, and set up a payment plan for any outstanding charges.

Assessment and findings

Policies and Procedures

  1. The lease agreement states that the lighting of communal areas is the landlord’s responsibility to maintain, at the cost of the leaseholder.
  2. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made’. It states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at stage one and 20 working days at stage two.

Scope of investigation

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42 (k) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which states ‘The Ombudsman will not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body’, the complaint relating to the landlord’s handling data breach is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. Complaints about the way an organisation is handling personal information – including whether the information held about the individual is incorrect, they have held it for too long, or they are not keeping it secure, are matters which fall properly within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). As such the Ombudsman will not be considering this aspect of the complaint further and should the resident want to pursue this, she should do so by contacting the ICO.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the lighting in communal areas around her property

  1. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only 3 principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
    2. Put things right, and;
    3. Learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
  3. The resident stated she first raised an issue with the lights in November 2021. The first contemporaneous record of this being raised with the landlord is from the repairs log of June 2022, which states she has reported an ongoing issue with ‘lights coming on at 02:00am’. The first record of the landlord addressing the issue is from the stage one response, which stated an appointment was confirmed to fix the lights on 23 November 2022. This constitutes an unreasonable delay, as it was 5 months since the first record of the resident reporting this as an issue. The reason for the delay is unclear, although the records do indicate that the appointment went ahead on this date.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord after this visit, stating she remained unhappy as the lights had not been changed. In her email dated 25 November 2022 the resident referred to having spoken with the operative that had attended, and that they had explained that the lights would come on in low light conditions. 
  5. On 14 February 2023, the landlord informed the resident the lights were not on external controls such as a timer, but controlled individually through a sensor, and illuminate if they sense presence, regardless of the time of day. The landlord provided a reasonable explanation for the functioning of the lights. Whilst the landlord is obliged to provide lighting to communal areas, it is not obliged to provide a specific kind of lighting, and is able to light the area as deemed practically appropriate. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s strong feelings on this point, there is no indication of a failing in relation to the functioning of the lights.
  6. However, the landlord provided this explanation 169 working days after the first recorded instance of the resident reporting the issue. Although the evidence indicates the lights were not faulty and operating as intended, this constitutes an unreasonable delay in informing the resident of this. The reason for the delay is unclear. This was a service failure on the part of the landlord, and contributed towards the time taken by the resident to pursue this issue unnecessarily, resulting in inconvenience.
  7.  In respect of the landlord’s failings, orders are made below to ‘put things right’. The compensation ordered is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a minor failure by the landlord in the service it provided and it did not appropriately acknowledge these or fully put them right.

The landlord’s administration of service charges

  1. The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints are governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, which sets out the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which in its opinion concern the level of service charge, or the amount of service charge increase. The appropriate body that has jurisdiction to consider complaints about the level of the service charge is the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber – Residential Property), which can determine the appropriate level and amount of service charges recoverable by a landlord; decide if the charges were reasonably incurred; by whom they are payable, and when.
  2. However, this Service can assess whether the landlord followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and responded reasonably to the concerns the resident raised, taking account of all the circumstances of the case, which this assessment goes on to do.
  3. Regarding the service charges, the landlord has explained that residents are provided with an preliminary estimate, and then billed on actual usage. This is in line with the landlord’s service policy which states that if estimated costs exceed actual costs, the difference would be refunded to residents. Regarding the resident’s concerns about an increase in the energy costs (which she felt was due to the concerns she had about the communal lighting) the landlord said that ‘any increase of service charge cost for energy would likely be down to the price increase last year and not fully related to lights being left on during the day.’ The Ombudsman considers this to be reasonable, in light of energy cost increases.
  4. The resident advised she was concerned about the how leaseholder service charges were apportioned, so added this to her complaint on 29 October 2022. The landlord responded a week later, providing a breakdown of charges for electricity and explaining how this was calculated. This was appropriate in respect of her query regarding charges for the communal lighting, although the landlord could have taken additional steps to further explain how service charges were applied across all areas, to prevent any further confusion.
  5. Furthermore, the resident was understandably concerned about an outstanding balance on her service charge account, after an error with a direct debit between February and May 2022 meant she was in arrears. Though it is unclear who was responsible for the error, the Ombudsman notes the landlord has admitted an error on its behalf meant it credited £307.19 to the resident’s account in February 2023. It then went on to remove 2 months of charges, amounting to £258.71, leaving an outstanding balance of £414.11. Although the circumstances are unclear, it seems likely there was a failing on the part of the landlord, due to the refund being processed to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to notify the resident of the issue with the payment sooner than it did.
  6. However, the landlord has since taken steps to put things right and it is noted that the landlord has already provided the £300 refund sought by the resident as a resolution. The landlord’s overall offer in respect of the service charges is considered by the Ombudsman to be reasonable redress in the circumstances. The landlord is reminded of its offer to set up a payment plan for the resident, and obligation to treat residents with due care and consideration of financial circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The resident stated several times that she first raised concerns about the lights in November 2021. The landlord has not provided this Service with a copy of the initial complaint, but the stage one response refers to the resident having contacted the landlord in December 2021 to question the bill for communal lighting. The repair log provided shows the resident reported an ongoing issue with the communal lights in June 2022. The landlord recorded a stage one complaint on 24 October 2022. While it is unclear when the resident first made the landlord aware of her concerns, it is apparent she did so before a stage one complaint was recorded. The landlord reasonably ought to have a logged a complaint sooner, in line with the definition of a complaint as per its complaints policy. This is highlighted by the landlord stating in the response: ‘(It) would like to ensure (the resident) is aware of the appointment scheduled to fix the communal lights, as this and the finance issue has been the cause of a lot of contact (to the landlord) over the last 10 months or so’. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and meant it missed an opportunity to address the resident’s concerns earlier.
  2. The stage one response was provided on 10 November 2022, 13 working days later. Though this does not constitute a substantial delay, the Ombudsman notes this is outside of the timescales stipulated in the landlord’s complaints policy. Furthermore, the stage one response listed the complaint issue as ‘poor communication’ from the landlord. Although the landlord did go on to address this, it failed to address the substantive complaint issue of the communal lighting in detail.
  3. The resident informed the landlord she remained dissatisfied with the lights and poor customer service on 25 November 2022 and 21 December 2022. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two on 17 January 2022, after further contact from the resident. The landlord reasonably ought to have escalated the complaint on 25 November 2022, as per its complaints policy. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and contributed towards the overall time taken to resolve the complaint.
  4. In the stage two response from 14 February 2023, the landlord apologised for not addressing all the issues the resident raised previously. It sufficiently addressed the resident’s concerns, and apologised for the time the resident had taken to chase her complaint by offering an additional £100 compensation. This is deemed to be insufficient redress in the circumstances, given the time and trouble taken by the resident to pursue her complaint. Orders are made below for additional compensation, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident and the landlord has made some attempt to put things right but failed to address the detriment to the resident.
  5. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, which contributed towards the resident’s overall frustration and inconvenience. A finding of service failure is made, and orders are made below in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to ‘learn from outcomes’.

Determination

  1. 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 the lighting in communal areas around her property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the administration of service charges.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
    1. Pay the resident the £175 total compensation offered previously, if it has not already done so;
    2. Pay the resident an additional £150 compensation (£75 for the service failure in regards to the communal lighting and £75 in regards to the complaint handling failings).
    3. Review its complaint handling practices, re-training staff if necessary. It should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure it includes information that reminds residents of their rights to challenge services charges and then apply to the First-Tier Tribunal, when issuing service charges invoices and when responding to service charge disputes and complaints.
  2. The landlord should provide the resident with an electricity usage reading if requested, and explain how the cost for the communal lighting is calculated.
  3. The landlord may wish to consider whether the communal lights at the property provide a reasonable standard of energy efficiency, or if an upgrade is needed, if it has not already done so.