Stonewater (2) Limited (201912877)

 

 

 

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201912877

Stonewater Limited

27 January 2021

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 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Concerns regarding service charge elements.
   2. Request for reimbursement following redecoration at the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The tenancy began in 2007. The property is a two–bedroom flat. The resident has difficulty with mobility and is partially sighted.

The tenancy agreement

3. The tenancy agreement sets out the rights and obligations of both the resident and the landlord. Section 1.5 relates to Services and sets out the services that the landlord will provide, for which the resident will pay a service charge. These are as follows –

Communal electric

Communal cleaning

Laundry equipment

Communal lighting

Fire alarm, equipment and emergency lighting

Door Entry system

Maintenance and upkeep of communal areas

Metered water

Repairs and renewals – common areas

TV aerial

Refuse bins

Window cleaning

4. In relation to the charges, the tenancy agreement provides –

“The service charge shall be a fair proportion of the costs incurred or likely to be incurred in the provision of services EACH YEAR and any reasonable provision for replacement or renewal of equipment and plant and machinery and the Association’s associated administration.

The Association reserves the right to vary the provision of services during the period of this tenancy. The Association will notify the tenant of the proposed variations asking for the tenant’s comments, which will be considered before making any changes.”

Summary of events

5. At the beginning of 2020, the resident contacted this Service and advised that they were unhappy with certain charges that they had been paying, and that they were not satisfied with the response they had received from the landlord. Following further discussion between this Service and the landlord, it was established that the resident’s concerns had not been investigated through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.
6. The landlord subsequently took steps to make enquiries with the resident so that it could consider their concerns as a formal complaint. A formal response was issued on 25 March 2020. Within this, the landlord said –
   1. It wished to apologise that the resident had not been given a key to the laundry room when they moved to the property. It said that it understood that the resident no longer required access as they had plumbing in their property for their own washing machine. However, it was unable to remove the service charge relating to the laundry room as it was part of the tenancy agreement which they signed.
   2. In relation to the fire alarms and extinguishers, it said that the charge related to the maintenance of this equipment and that it needs to be serviced and tested regularly. It added that this also formed part of the tenancy agreement.
   3. The resident had raised concerns about paying a charge for rubbish disposal and they believed that the bins were collected by the local authority. The landlord confirmed that this charge related to removing rubbish that had been dumped at the scheme – and such collections were done on an ad hoc basis. It explained that this charge also formed part of the tenancy agreement.
   4. In relation to reimbursement for redecoration, the landlord said that too much time had passed since the resident moved to the property for it to investigate this complaint. The landlord said that whilst it could not compensate the resident directly for the redecoration, it wished to offer them £100 for the stress and inconvenience that the matter had caused.
7. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response. They informed this Service that they had been paying a service charge relating to the laundry room for 13 years, but could not access it as the landlord had not provided them with a key. The fire extinguishers had been removed; and the landlord had provided an assurance when they moved to the property that they would be reimbursed £40 for each room that was redecorated. This Service provided the resident with information on how to escalate his concerns with the landlord.
8. Following further discussion, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to have the complaint escalated on 27 May 2020. The stage two response was subsequently issued on 10 June. Within this, the landlord said:
   1. Its complaints policy states that it will raise complaints regarding service charges where there has been a failure to deliver a particular service. However, it felt that the officer who investigated the matter had gone beyond this and provided a reasonable response.
   2. The service charges form part of the resident’s tenancy agreement.
   3. In relation to the fire alarm and extinguishers charge, this cost was to cover the maintenance of the smoke detectors and fire alarm.
   4. With regards to the rubbish disposal charge, it had asked for a review of the service charge to be undertaken to ensure that the charge itself was reasonable.
   5. The resident’s tenancy started in 2007, and its complaints policy only covered incidents that had taken place within the last six months. Given the time that had elapsed, its response at stage one was reasonable.
9. The resident remained dissatisfied with the response and asked the landlord to carry out a further review. The landlord responded on 30 July and advised that it could not see anything that would change its decision. However, it had reviewed the tenancy history and –
   1. It was unable to find a trail of contact regarding the laundry room key or the reimbursement for redecoration. However, during this time it had received other contact from the resident.
   2. The first mention of the reimbursement for redecoration that it could find was in 2013. However, if the resident had been promised reimbursement, it would have expected to see this being mentioned sooner after the tenancy began – and not six years later.
   3. If the resident was able to provide any evidence relating to the promise of reimbursement for redecoration or in relation to the laundry room key, it would consider this further.
   4. The service charge for disposal related to fly tipping and not the regular waste collection that the local authority was responsible for. As such, there would be no refund of this service charge element.
   5. The previous offer of compensation remained open if the resident wished to accept it.
10. As the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, they asked the Ombudsman to investigate their concerns.
11. Towards the end of 2020, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord provided them with a key to the laundry room. On 24 January 2021, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it wished to offer the resident vouchers totaling £175 to use towards the redecoration of their home. The landlord advised that it had been reviewing its policies; and in light of this it wished to make the offer to the resident. It added that it may offer vouchers where it may not be able to confirm a financial reimbursement, but still acknowledge distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Services provided by the landlord and associated charges

12. In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord appropriately advised that the resident had agreed to pay the relevant charges when they signed the tenancy agreement. The landlord explained what services the charges related to, and this was a proportionate response to the concerns which were raised.
13. With regards to the refuse disposal charge, it is noted that the tenancy agreement makes express reference to ‘refuse bins’; and it is therefore understandable why the resident queried this charge. The landlord has provided an explanation about what service this charge covers – and that it is to clear refuse which has been dumped on the estate. The landlord also advised that it would be reviewing this charge to ensure that it was reasonable. This Service has not seen the outcome of this review; and the landlord should reasonably share this information with the resident if it has not done so already.
14. In relation to the laundry room key, the resident has not provided either the landlord or this Service with an explanation as to why the matter was not raised prior to 2020, given that the tenancy began in 2007. It is noted that the resident has washing facilities plumbed within the property – and therefore would not have had the need to access the communal facilities. However, as the matter was not raised with the landlord prior to 2020, it could not reasonably take steps to investigate the matter or provide the resident with a key sooner.
15. It is acknowledged that the resident has been paying the service charge relating to the laundry facilities, but that they did not have access to the room. Ordinarily it would be reasonable for the landlord to refund the relevant charge for the period that the resident could not access the room. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord was aware before 2020 that the resident was without a key – and therefore that they were paying for a service they could not use. As such, in the circumstances, a general compensation payment would be more appropriate.

Reimbursement for redecoration

16. In response to the resident’s request for reimbursement, the landlord advised that given the time that had passed, it was unable to investigate the resident’s concerns. However, it did offer the resident £100 compensation, which they declined at the time. The landlord has subsequently offered the resident £175 in decoration vouchers.
17. The Ombudsman recently informed the resident that the landlord also wished to offer them redecoration vouchers. However, they explained that they have no wish to redecorate the property again; and therefore, such vouchers would not be of use. 
18. The landlord’s comments in relation to the time that has elapsed were reasonable. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence which shows that the resident had raised concerns about the reimbursement prior to 2013 – or between 2013 and 2020. It is not clear what action the landlord took in 2013 in response to the resident’s comments. However, it would have been reasonable for the resident to raise these concerns soon after the redecoration was complete, and to chase the landlord if the response was not forthcoming.
19. However, despite a lack of evidence, the landlord offered the resident £100 compensation for the trouble and inconvenience they had been caused. Given the absence of other evidence, this offer was appropriate in the circumstances. The resident’s comments regarding the redecoration vouchers which have been offered now have been noted. However, they have been offered as a gesture of goodwill as opposed to being offered as a remedy for a failing that has been identified through investigation. It follows that there are no grounds for this Service to order the landlord to pay the resident monetary compensation as opposed to offering vouchers or a similar gesture of goodwill. 

Determination (decision)

20. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, I determine that there was:
    1. Service failure in the landlord’s response to the complaint about service charge elements.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement following redecoration to the property.

 

 

Reasons

21. The resident raised concerns about some of the elements covered by the service charge they were paying. In response, the landlord provided an appropriate explanation about what the services are, and that the resident had agreed to pay the associated charges when they signed the tenancy agreement.
22. In response to the resident’s complaint about the laundry services, the landlord failed to acknowledge that the resident had been paying for a service that they could not access. However, there is no evidence to show that the landlord was made aware of this prior to 2020 – and therefore it would not be reasonable to insist that the landlord refund this element of the service charge dating back to the beginning of the tenancy. In the circumstances, an offer of compensation would be more appropriate.
23. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence which shows that the landlord had offered to reimburse the resident £40 per room that was redecorated. In addition, whilst this was raised in 2013, there is no evidence to show that the resident queried the matter again between 2013 and 2020. In the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord to offer the resident £100. The landlord has since offered the resident a further £175 in redecoration vouchers. Whilst it is noted that the resident has no desire to redecorate the property again, the offer is reasonable in the circumstances.

Orders

24. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should pay the resident:
    1. £100 for inconvenience caused as a result of being without a key to access the laundry room.
    2. The £100 which was offered in March 2020.

Recommendations

25. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £175 worth of decoration vouchers. It remains open to the resident as to whether they wish to accept this or not.
    2. Provide the resident with information about the outcome of the review of charges relating to refuse disposal.