Southern Housing Group Limited (202007717)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202007717

Southern Housing Group Limited

22 March 2022

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. delays to information relating to the increased electricity costs as part of the service charge;
2. the apportionment of electricity costs between properties in the block;
3. information provided when moving into the property, including the following:
  1. that the property did not have a separate electricity meter;
  2. that the resident was required to contribute to the service charge deficit for the year prior to him moving into the property;
4. delays to the installation of a smart meter at the block;
5. calculation of the service charge.

Jurisdiction

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.
Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

g) concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase.

The above complaints include elements about the level of the service charge, which is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can, however, consider the landlord’s communication and complaint handling throughout the period of the complaint. The Ombudsman’s investigation will therefore be focused on the landlord’s communication. Should the resident have ongoing concerns about the level of the service charge, the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) (the FTT) is the appropriate body for this dispute. The resident should also consider independent legal advice.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme notes as follows:

39. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:

e) were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

As set out below, following the resident’s formal complaint on 13 August 2020, the parties had a discussion on 20 August 2020 during which the resident raised concerns that he had not been informed that his property did not have an individual electricity meter when moving into the property, and that he had to contribute to the service charge deficit for the accounting year 2007/2008 despite having moved into the property in 2009. The landlord specifically acknowledged these complaints in its communication of the same date.
Given the significant amount of time that has elapsed from the date these issues arose to the date the resident raised them in a discussion regarding a formal complaint, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, these complaints are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord did not refer to these complaints in either of its formal responses, nor did it provide its position on why it would not investigate them, which given it had already raised expectations by acknowledging them earlier, would have caused frustration.
A recommendation has been made below that the landlord write to the resident and offer an apology for not having addressed these complaints and for it to provide its position as to whether it will investigate the complaints.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 10 August 2009. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
The property is one of several properties on a block. The individual properties do not have their own electricity meters. Instead, there is a single meter covering all properties on the block.
The tenancy agreement includes a provision to pay a variable service charge. The service charge includes an amount for electricity costs.
The landlord operates a service charge policy. The policy notes that the services provided will be apportioned by using the ‘notional room value’ for each property, which is calculated using the number of bedrooms in each property, plus an additional amount for the increased living space in larger properties.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints policy. The policy notes that service charge enquiries will not be responded to under the complaints policy and are instead treated as an enquiry to the relevant person within the landlord’s organisation. Stage two responses may either be considered by a complaints panel, which includes a resident representative, or by a senior manager.

Summary of events

It is not disputed that the estimated electricity costs which form part of the service charge payable by the resident were significantly increased for the accounting year 2019/2020 when compared to previous years. Following the landlord providing the estimates, in February 2020 the resident requested to view the electricity invoices. The landlord requested these from the energy supplier, and subsequently provided these to the resident in May 2020. The landlord has informed this service it had to chase these from the energy supplier throughout April 2020.
Following receipt of the invoices, the resident disputed the level of service charge based on the increased electricity costs. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications from this period. The landlord noted that the invoices alone cannot be relied upon to calculate the service charge as they do not account for various accruals or deficits year to year. The landlord also noted that the electricity bill was significantly higher than expected and so opened an investigation. This investigation involved liaising with the energy supplier and completing new calculations based on actual meter readings as opposed to estimates.
In or around July 2021, the resident also raised concern about how the electricity costs were apportioned given that, despite properties having different numbers of bedrooms, they each had the same amount of heating equipment installed. It is not disputed that at this time, the landlord’s estate manager provided regular verbal updates to the resident, which mostly consisted of advice that the issue was still being investigated.
On 7 August 2020, the landlord provided a written update to the resident noting that it was liaising with the energy provider and investigating whether there had been an overcharge. On 13 August 2020, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction that the issue was still ongoing. The landlord subsequently logged this as a formal complaint, which it acknowledged on 17 August 2020.
On or around 20 August 2020, the parties discussed the complaint on the telephone, with the landlord following up in writing. It noted the complaint related to the resident not being informed that there were not individual electricity meters when he moved to the property, that he had had to contribute towards a service charge deficit for the accounting year 2007/2008, whereas he had moved to the property in 2009, that the electricity costs were apportioned based on the size of each property, and that the landlord had delayed in providing information about the increased electricity costs. The resident requested that the landlord provide all electricity bills from 2007/2008 onwards and also requested a breakdown of the management fee.
On 28 August 2020, the landlord noted it was still investigating the increased electricity costs and would provide a response shortly. It also noted that the apportionment of the electricity costs was based on National Housing Federation guidance, but that it was internally discussing if this was the best approach. It would include the results of this discussion in its response. It further advised that it was seeking to install a smart meter at the block to ensure future electricity accounts were accurate.
On 25 September 2020, the landlord provided a further update to the resident. It advised that the electricity bills had been charged based on estimates as opposed to actual meter readings. This had led to an overestimate, for which there was a refund due. The refund would be paid in the form of a reduction of the service charge. The landlord also advised it had discussed how the electricity costs were apportioned between residents and concluded that, as its method was in accordance with the National Housing Federation guidance, it would not be changing its approach. It concluded by apologising for the delays to its investigation into the electricity costs.
The landlord followed this up with its formal stage one response on 30 September 2020. The response noted that explanations in relation to some aspects of the complaint had been provided in its previous update. Regarding its delays to providing updates in relation to the increased electricity costs, the landlord noted that following receipt of the invoices from the energy supplier, it had provided weekly updates to the resident, but that prior to this, there had been extended periods in which it had not provided any updates, for which it apologised.
On or around 15 October 2020, the resident requested an escalation of his complaint, which the landlord acknowledged on 20 October 2020. Two other residents also raised the same concerns, and the landlord agreed to provide its response to all three residents.
On 29 October 2020, the landlord provided a breakdown of how the service charge was calculated, to which the resident raised concerns that the columns used in its calculations were inconsistent resulting in errors. Around this time, the resident also requested the landlord provide hard copies of all the electricity bills from 2007/2008 onwards.
On 25 November 2020, given that there had been further discussions about the resident’s concerns since the previous complaint, the landlord provided a new stage one response. Regarding the resident’s concerns about the refund for the overestimated electricity costs, the landlord noted it had explained this had been due to the charge being based on estimates in its earlier communication on 25 September 2020. This communication had also explained how the refund would be applied. Regarding the resident’s request for past electricity invoices, it advised it had provided these dated from 2012 onwards but was struggling to obtain earlier invoices due to using a different energy supplier for this period.
Regarding the apportionment of electricity costs, the landlord advised it had already confirmed its position and that the resident should consider referring this issue to an external body should he wish to pursue this element of the complaint. It also provided a copy of the National Housing Federation guidance for the resident’s records. The landlord also provided clarification regarding the management fee element of its service charge and provided a list of the management tasks in related to. It also provided a breakdown of the capital contribution costs which were part of the service charge.
On 8 December 2020, the resident noted that some of the electricity invoices he had received were estimates only and so he requested copies of the final invoices. He reiterated that he considered the apportionment of the electricity costs to be unfair and also reiterated there were errors in the columns used in the documents for the service charge calculations. He subsequently requested his complaint be escalated.
The landlord acknowledged this request for an escalation on 16 December 2020 and advised that due to the Christmas shutdown, its response would be provided in the new year. On 11 February 2021, the landlord advised that its usual stage two process would include a panel review, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was unable to get the involvement of a resident panel member. It would therefore provide a management review. The landlord queried if the resident wished to have a meeting prior to its response, to which the resident declined, so instead, the landlord requested he put all outstanding concerns in writing.
On 3 March 2021, the resident provided a list of the following concerns:
1. that the past electricity invoices provided were estimates, not final invoices. Additionally, he requested an explanation for a number of credit notes from 2015 included in the documents and why they were necessary for an investigation into the 2019/2020 electricity increase;
2. what action the landlord had taken once it was aware of the increased electricity costs;
3. why there was a delay on the installation of the smart meter;
4. that the apportionment of electricity costs between properties was unfair;
5. that he was charged for a service charge deficit for the year 2007/2008, which was prior to him moving into the property;
6. that the columns used in the service charge calculation documents were incorrect, leading to an incorrect calculation of the service charge;
7. that he wanted an explanation of the management fee and the capital contribution charges.

The resident concluded that he wanted an independent audit of the service charge accounts.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s communication on 4 March 2021. On 19 March 2021, the landlord advised its investigation would take more time and that it would endeavour to provide its response by 14 April 2021.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord provided an interim stage two response. It advised it was having further internal discussions regarding the apportionment of charges and would provide a further response on this element of the complaint by 30 April 2021.
Regarding the resident’s requests for electricity invoices, the landlord noted it had provided all the available invoices from 2012 onwards. It noted that under the relevant legislation relating to service charges, it was only obligated to provide the previous 12 months’ invoice and so it had already gone above and beyond this obligation. It noted that it had included credit notes from 2015 with these documents as the resident had asked for all the documents, but these had not been a part of its investigation into the electricity cost increase in 2019/2020.
Regarding its investigation into the increased costs, it advised that prior to 2018, it had used an energy supplier which did not provide regular invoices, and so had changed energy supplier. The subsequent invoices had been based on estimates which had led to the increased cost estimates in 2019/2020. The landlord noted the resident considered it to have issued the service charge despite knowing the figures were incorrect, however, the landlord advised it had not concluded they were incorrect and that it was only investigating at the time the service charge was issued. The landlord also noted that the resident had made comments that it was a “reseller” of electricity, which it disputed and explained that its role was to apportion the costs on behalf of the residents.
Regarding the meters at the block, the landlord noted it had previously considered individual meters, but had decided against this as to retrofit them to the properties was too expensive. It advised that the smart meter had now been fitted which should give accurate readings going forward, and that the installation had previously been delayed due to technical difficulties.
It also noted that resident had made a number of queries about how the service charge was calculated, but noted these fell outside of its complaints policy, and that its service charge team would provide a response separately.
On 29 April 2021, the landlord advised it required further time to reach a decision on changes to apportionment of electricity costs and on 14 May 2021, the landlord advised it required further time for its service charge team to finalise the accounting of any financial impact of its proposed changes.
The landlord provided its further stage two response on 4 June 2021 and apologised for the delay. The landlord noted that while it did not have a policy in place specific to the apportionment of electricity costs, there was guidance for apportionment of service charges which was calculated on the notional room value. This accounted for bedrooms in a property as well as an additional amount to reflect the increased living space in a property in addition to the number of bedrooms. It concluded that the resident’s complaint was therefore upheld and that it would adjust its approach to rely on calculations using the notional room value. It advised it would provide further updates about when the change of approach would take effect. It also reiterated its intention to provide a further response in relation to the service charge calculation but failed to provide a timeframe in which it would do so.
On 30 June 2021, the landlord provided correspondence to all residents explaining the changes in approach to its apportionment of electricity costs. On the same date, the landlord provided to the resident a breakdown of the service charge calculation and confirmed it had made a mistake in the calculation of the refund owed. It apologised for this error and noted the calculation now included the corrected information.
The resident replied on the same date and advised he disagreed with the new apportionment method. He also requested that the refund due be paid directly to his bank account. The resident has advised that following the landlord’s final response, he has continued to have ongoing discussions with the landlord about the apportionment of electricity costs.

Assessment and findings

Increased electricity costs

Following the estimated service charge for the year 2019/2020, it is not disputed that the resident, along with other residents on the block, noted that the electricity costs had increased, following which they requested copies of the electricity invoices. While there is no policy providing a specific timeframe for these documents to be made available, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide them within a reasonable timeframe, or to provide updates and an explanation where there is a delay.
The landlord has advised in its formal response that it requested the invoices from the energy provider, but that there was a delay of several months in these being provided. Based on the landlord’s internal correspondence, the landlord chased up the invoices from the energy provider throughout April 2020, before receiving them in May 2020, at which point it made them available to the resident. The landlord has acknowledged, however, that it failed to provide updates to the resident for this period, for which it apologised. As noted above, this failure to provide reasonable updates where there are delays is below the level of service the Ombudsman would expect and so constitutes service failure. Given, however, that the landlord was actively chasing the invoices, and that while its lack of updates would have been frustrating for the resident, the invoices would nevertheless not have been available any sooner, the Ombudsman considers that in the circumstances, the landlord’s apology amounts to reasonable redress for its service failure.
Following the resident raising concerns that based on the invoices, the electricity costs were incorrect, the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the issue by taking current manual meter readings and liaising with the energy provider to determine if there had been an overpayment. Throughout this period, the landlord appropriately provided progress updates to the resident on a regular basis.
Following the resident’s formal complaint that the issue was still ongoing, the landlord also appropriately arranged for a telephone call to discuss the resident’s concerns and provided further updates throughout August 2020. In September 2020, in advance of its formal complaint response, the landlord provided a detailed update to explain why the estimates had been high (i.e. they had been based on estimated meter readings rather than accurate manual readings) and that subsequently, a refund was due. The landlord advised that the refund would take the form of a reduction of service charge, which the Ombudsman considers a reasonable method of applying such a refund and common practice in the industry. The Ombudsman notes that the resident remains dissatisfied as to this issue and considers that the refund should have been paid directly to his bank account. As noted elsewhere in this determination report, the resident has the option to seek additional legal remedies in relation to his complaint and should seek independent legal advice should he wish to do so.
In its stage one response of November 2020, the landlord noted that the resident had queried how the overestimate had occurred and how the refund would be applied. Given that this information had been given in its communication in September 2020, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to this communication in its formal response. Given that the resident had requested copies of the electricity invoices back to 2007, it was also appropriate that the landlord confirmed it had provided invoices back to 2012 and that it was endeavouring to obtain older invoices.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that stage two complaints, where possible, will be considered by a complaints panel. Given the COVID-19 pandemic was in effect over this period, it was reasonable for the landlord to have advised the panel hearing could not take place due to difficulties in arranging for a resident panel member, and for a senior management review to occur instead. Additionally, given the nature of the complaints and the additional research required for some issues as discussed below, it was also reasonable for the landlord to have provided multiple updates to request extensions for its stage two response. It was also appropriate that as it had responses ready for some complaints ahead of others, it provided an interim stage two response.
In its interim stage two response, the landlord explained it had been unable to obtain invoices earlier than 2012 due to difficulties liaising with a previous energy supplier and that its legal obligation was only to provide the previous 12 months’ invoices. This response was reasonable in the circumstances as it had gone above and beyond to provide the resident with older invoices and provided a reasonable explanation as to why it was unable to provide additional invoices.
Additionally, while the resident had expressed concern that some of the earlier invoices had been estimates only, it is not evident that the landlord had been intentionally holding back any additional documents, and given that it was not legally required to provide invoices from this period, it was reasonable that it explained it had provided all the documents it had. These included various credit notes from 2015, which while it would have been helpful to have provided context for why these were included earlier, its explanation that it wanted to provide all available documents in its stage two response was reasonable.
In summary, while the landlord initially failed to provide updates regarding the invoices requested in early 2020, for which it appropriately apologised, the landlord’s subsequent communication was reasonable and its efforts to provide the resident with all invoices it had access to went above and beyond its legal obligations.

Apportionment of electricity costs

At the time of the initial complaint, the landlord apportioned the electricity costs between the properties based on the number of bedrooms in each property.
It is not clear why the landlord initially deviated from its own guidance, which stated that a calculation using the notional room value was used for apportionment calculations, which took into account the number of bedrooms in each property, plus an additional amount for the increased living space in larger properties.
Following the concerns being raised about the increased electricity bills, the resident also raised concerns that this apportionment method was unfair. He advised that as each property had similar electrical installations, such as water heaters, the amount of electricity used would be similar across each property regardless of the number of bedrooms.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately explained its reasoning for using bedrooms as a metric for the apportionment calculation, being that this was considered equitable in accordance with the National Housing Federation guidance. Given his concerns, however, the landlord appropriately advised it would internally discuss if this method was the most appropriate.
The landlord subsequently provided an update that it had considered alternative approaches but concluded that its current approach was equitable as it was in line with the National Housing Federation guidance. This response was reasonable in the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, in the absence of individual meters, the apportionment of the electricity costs will inevitably be inaccurate to a degree. The landlord’s response, however, demonstrated that it had considered the best approach and provided a reason for its approach, which while not strictly in line with its apportionment guidance, was applied uniformly across each property and was based on alternative guidance specifically aimed at equitable apportionment.
It was reasonable for the landlord to reiterate this approach in its stage one response of 25 November 2020, and it was appropriate that it advised the resident he could seek an external body to assess this should he remain dissatisfied, i.e. the FTT.
As part of the landlord’s stage two response, the landlord decided to revisit whether an alternative approach was appropriate. Given that this required a detailed assessment of the financial implications, the delay to the landlord’s further stage two response was reasonable and it was appropriate that it provided a notification and reasoning for the delay.
The landlord’s decision to adjust the apportionment to be in line with its own guidance was reasonable given that this new calculation took into account additional factors which may affect the electricity use, such as increased living space which would require additional energy to heat. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this change of approach does not make the previous approach amount to service failure, as that approach had also been thoughtfully considered and had been based on guidance designed to result in equitable apportionment. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise it was now changing its approach and also reasonable that, given that the previous approach was reasonable, for it not to retroactively apply the change to the apportionment calculation.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident disagrees with the new approach to apportionment as it further deviates from what he considers to be fair in the circumstances. The Ombudsman further notes that the parties continue to discuss this issue and that the resident is entitled to make representations about what he considers to be fair. Nevertheless, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s previous and current approaches to apportionment were both reasonable in the circumstances. Should the resident continue to disagree with this approach, this determination does not prevent him from seeking further legal remedies, for which he should consider independent legal advice.

Smart meter

It is not disputed that, despite not being used for manual readings, the previous electricity meter for the block functioned correctly. The replacement of this meter with a smart meter would therefore be considered an improvement rather than a repair.
It is not evident that the landlord committed to any specific timeframe for this improvement. Given that it had advised the resident in August 2020 that it intended to install the smart meter, it would have been helpful to have provided updates regarding the installation and an earlier explanation for its delay. The absence of these updates would not be considered service failure, however.
Following the resident raising it as a concern as part of his complaint escalation correspondence in March 2021, the landlord appropriately addressed the concern in its stage two response and provided a reasonable explanation for the delay.

Service charge calculation

As noted above, determinations regarding the amount of the service charge are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The Ombudsman can, however, investigate the landlord’s communication when dealing with a complaint regarding the service charge.
The landlord’s complaints policy notes that complaints relating to the service charge will be responded to outside of its formal complaints process. The Ombudsman understands this is to be common practice in the industry. The Ombudsman would nevertheless expect a landlord to provide responses within a reasonable timeframe.
Following the landlord’s initial stage one response in September 2020, it is evident that as part of the refund information, it had provided the resident with an updated calculation of the service charge. As part of his request for an escalation, the resident noted there were formatting errors in these calculations which he advised had led to an inaccurate calculation. In its further stage one response, the landlord did not specifically address these concerns, instead referring to its earlier communication about the amended service charge following the refund. This was a missed opportunity to directly address the resident’s concerns about formatting issues with the calculations. While the landlord could have advised that it would respond to this query outside of its complaints process, as it did in its stage two response, it also missed the opportunity to do so. This would have left the resident frustrated and unsure about how this element of the complaint would be delt with. This constituted service failure, and an amount of compensation is appropriate to represent the distress caused to the resident and his time and trouble in chasing up the issue. An amount of £50 is reasonable in the circumstances.
The resident had also queried other elements of the service charge, including the management fee and the capital contribution costs. The landlord appropriately provided an explanation of these costs as well as a breakdown in its further stage one response. It is evident that the resident reiterated his request for an explanation of these costs in his escalated complaint. At this stage, the landlord advised the resident that it would be responding to his queries about the service charge outside of its formal complaints response. Given the complexities around the service charge calculations, it was reasonable for it to refer this response to its accounts team and while it would have been helpful for it to have provided a timeframe for this response, it is evident that the parties have continued to liaise on this issue, which included an acknowledgement and apology for a mistake in its calculation of the refund.
The Ombudsman notes that the resident considered that the landlord was a reseller of electricity given that it paid for the electricity and then apportioned the cost amongst residents. In its formal response, the landlord appropriately advised this was not the case and that it was not a reseller of electricity but was merely carrying out its functions as a landlord. The Ombudsman considers this to be the correct interpretation of the relationship between the parties, however, as with above, the resident is able to seek further legal advice on this issue should he remain dissatisfied.

Determination (decision)

As noted above, in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the complaint about information provided when moving into the property, including that the property did not have a separate electricity meter, and that the resident was required to contribute to the service charge deficit for the year prior to him moving into the property, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about:
1. delays to the installation of a smart meter at the block;
2. the apportionment of electricity costs between properties in the block;
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s concerns about the calculation of the service charge.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its delays in providing information relating to the increased electricity costs as part of the service charge.

Reasons

Increased electricity costs

While the landlord initially failed to provide updates regarding the invoices requested in early 2020, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its apology amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
The landlord’s subsequent communication was reasonable and its efforts to provide the resident with all invoices it had access to went above and beyond its legal obligations.

Apportionment of electricity costs

The landlord appropriately advised the resident of the basis on which it had apportioned the electricity charges, which was based on a calculation designed to be equitable. It also appropriately considered the resident’s concerns as part of its stage one investigation, and its initial decision to retain the current methos was reasonable in the circumstances.
Following the resident’s further concerns, the landlord again appropriately considered alternative approaches and its decision to alter the calculation to bring the apportionment method in line with its guidelines was also reasonable in the circumstances.

Smart meter

The installation of the smart meter is considered an improvement and the landlord did not commit to complete the installation within any specific timeframe. While interim updates would have been helpful, it provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in its stage two response.

Service charge calculation

As part of his complaint, the resident advised that he considered there to be a miscalculation of the service charge refund based on incorrect formatting of the service charge calculation documents. The landlord failed to address this complaint in its stage one response or provide a timeframe for it to respond outside of its formal complaint responses.
While the landlord later acknowledged it in its stage two response and later apologised for the miscalculation, its earlier failure to address the complaint constituted service failure, for which compensation is appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £50 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its failure to address his complaint regarding the miscalculation of the service charge refund.
This amount must be paid within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to write to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination and include the following:
1. an apology for having failed to acknowledge his complaints regarding the information provided to him at the start of his tenancy, including:
  1. that the property did not have a separate electricity meter;
  2. that the resident was required to contribute to the service charge deficit for the year prior to him moving into the property;

and to provide its position on whether it can consider these complaints or whether they are now out of time.

enquire as to whether the resident has any ongoing concerns about the calculation of the service charge.