Stonewater Limited (202214459)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214459

Stonewater Limited

2 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 the landlord’s:
1. Response to reports of a lack of provision of promised communal facilities and about associated service charges.
2. Handling of the related complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared ownership leaseholder. The property is a 1 bedroom maisonette.
The lease provided by the landlord indicates that the lease started in 2021 but does not state the exact date. It is noted however that in his communication with the landlord, the resident stated his purchase of the property completed on 19 August 2021 and he moved in on 20 August 2021.
The property is a new build. The landlord is a housing association. Handover of the resident’s property (from the developer to the landlord) took place on 27 January 2021.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Scope of investigation

On 24 February 2023, the resident told this Service that his service charges had gone up by 100% and been told by the landlord that it could charge “what it wants” and if overcharged he would get a refund in 12 months time. As this concern was raised after the landlord’s final response and there is no evidence of this complaint exhausting its complaints process, this complaint will not be part of this review. It is important to note however that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints concerning the level of service charge or the amount of a service charge increase. These types of complaints fall within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) so the resident may need to consider making a claim via the FTT.

Summary of events

On 31 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord through its online webform about a lack of rubbish facilities provided for the shared properties in his scheme. He said bins were needed as a matter of urgency as this is a hygiene and safety matter due to pests accessing the rubbish area and ripping into the bin bags. Homeowners and residents who pay a monthly service charge were left to resolve. The resident asked for a date of when he could expect bins to be delivered.
On 3 September 2021, the landlord raised internally if it was expected to provide communal bins to the resident’s scheme.
On 20 September 2021, the landlord replied to the resident advising it had passed his query onto its neighbourhoods team who would contact him shortly.
The landlord’s records show it contacted the developer on 28 September 2021 regarding bin store facilities who advised that the local council do not use bins and the bin store had been constructed for storage of refuse bags.
On 30 September 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint. He said he raised a concern about bin facilities on his road 4 weeks ago. He said that he had received an acknowledge on 20 September 2021 which was outside published timescale of 3 working days. The resident also raised the following issues:
1. Parking. He said the situation was poor as there were no parking lines or numbers on the spaces which has caused residents to park badly meaning often insufficient space was left for him to park his car. Numbered spaces and lines were in the agreement when he purchased the property and it was “totally unacceptable” this issue had not been resolved.
2. Estate management. He paid for a gardener as part of the service charge to attend every fortnight to maintain the communal outdoor areas in the scheme. The resident said this had not happened since he had moved in and other residents who had lived here longer than him had resorted to maintaining the areas themselves. He asked for the landlord to provide the schedule of agreement with the gardener and asked for a reduction in his service charge until a regular service was being provided.
3. Cycle storage. The resident said these facilities had been promised but not provided meaning he had to store his bike in his living room. He asked why this had not been built considering he was paying for this through his service charge.
The resident asked for the issues to be resolved as soon as possible and kept updated as per the response times stated in its policy.
The landlord’s internal records dated 30 September 2021 refer to having contacted the local council regarding the bin issue and also show that it was in communication with the developer regarding the installation of the cycle store facility and about parking discs and demarcation.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s internal records dated 5 October 2021 referred to receiving communication from the local council which suggested installing a ‘Eurobin’ service (large communal bins). The landlord noted this complaint was not an issue for the developer as they had provided what was expected in terms of planning and its contract.
The landlord’s records show it chased the developer on 19 October 2021 regarding timescales for the cycle facility and parking discs and demarcation.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord provided a stage 1 complaint response in which it stated the following:
1. Regarding grounds maintenance, its operational delivery manager (ODM) for his area, had confirmed there has been a service failure with his scheme in the respect that a grounds maintenance contractor was not set up when the scheme was signed off. It was “extremely” sorry for this failure and the inconvenience caused. Its ODM had instructed its contractor to carry out a site inspection and add this scheme to its contract with them. The site inspection should take place this week (beginning 18 October 2021) and the scheme would also be bought up to the correct standard and maintained moving forward on a regular schedule.
2. In relation to parking, parking discs had been ordered and the developer would install these when they arrive.
3. Regarding bins it said it recently written to residents advising that the council expected residents to use bags and not bins and take them to the bin collection point (BCP) located next to the visitor’s space. The landlord said it had been proposed that residents take bags to this point on collection day and had provided the link to the council’s website to understand the bin collection day for his area. The landlord told the resident that a permanent resolution to this was still in discussion and all residents would be updated once a decision had been finalised.
4. Regarding cycle storage, it was very sorry for the delay in providing this. The local council had approved this and the developer would be installing hoops once they had been delivered. It said that unfortunately, despite chasing the developer, it was still awaiting on timescales for this but it would update him as soon as it heard further.
Within its response, the landlord acknowledged that its communication provided had not been to the standard it expected for its customers for which it was sorry. His 31 August 2021 communication was not passed on to the correct team to address. It said it had spoken its administrators to ensure they’re aware of the correct procedure to follow. It said that its Senior New Homes Executive (SNHE), would continue to be his point of contact until the issues had been resolved and to get in touch with them should he have any questions.
The landlord stated that in light of its findings it would like to offer £260 in compensation based on £150 for the level of communication he had received due to administrative errors and £110 for the inconvenience caused by the delays in communication.
The landlord’s records indicate the developer visited the site on 2 December 2021 however this Service has not been provided with any details regarding the purpose of this visit.
On 10 December 2021, the resident emailed the landlord a photo of vehicles in the car park to demonstrate that due to a lack of lines, a van was parked over 2 spaces.
The landlord’s internal communications dated 13 December 2021 show it discussed the parking issue internally but there is no evidence to show it responded to the resident or chased the developer at this time.
The landlord’s records indicate that on 10 and 31 January 2022 and 7 February 2022, it chased the developer for an update on the cycle store and parking matter and on 8 February 2022 it contacted a manager at the developer who responded on the same date advising they were “looking into parking discs”.
On 5 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord about the letter received informing him that his rent and service charge would be increasing in from April 2022. This email queried the grounds maintenance and communal electric services amounts and the service provided. He asked if he would be entitled to a refund of the service charge for grounds maintenance due to the lack of service provided.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 9 March 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 16 March 2022 and the landlord replied on 21 March 2022 explaining that it raised an estimate for service charges and then this was reconciled at the end of the financial year. It said it would then send the reconciliation to all residents which showed actual expenditure and if the estimated charges had been overestimated, this amount was deducted from this year’s bill. It said if it had underestimated a service this was added to his bill. If there were no costs as previously mentioned this would be credited in the reconciliation.
The landlord’s internal communication dated 28 March 2022 shows it queried internally if a grounds maintenance contract had been set up for resident’s scheme.
The landlord’s records show that on 5 April 2022, it contacted the developer regarding “evidence of parking discs” and emailed them again on 7 April 2022 asking for an update, however, this Service has not had sight of its communications.
On 10 April 2022, the landlord updated the resident on the situation with bins stating it could initially supply individual lockable storage containers so residents would have a secure place to rubbish. The landlord also said it had been informed parking discs had been installed but to let it know it this was incorrect and it would contact the developer again. The resident replied on the same date stating no parking discs had been installed and he agreed with its bin storage idea and awaited action.
The landlord’s records show that it chased the developer about the parking discs again on 13 April 2022 and told the resident it had done so on 14 April 2022.
On 22 April 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain about its failure to follow up on commitments made in its stage 1 response regarding parking issues, no cycle storage, inadequate rubbish storage and recycling facilities and a lack of grounds maintenance. He complained he was paying for services he was not receiving. He asked that the landlord urgently addressed the outstanding issues.
The landlord’s records show that on 27 April 2022, it contacted the developer to advise it received a further complaint from the resident regarding no cycle storage or parking discs. The landlord noted on 9 May 2022 that the developer was in breach of contract regarding the lack of cycle storage provided as this was a planning requirement.
On 10 May 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to complain he had not received any response to his 22 April 2022 complaint about its failure to follow up on commitments made in its stage 1 response.
The landlord’s email dated 11 May 2022 showed the landlord queried internally what it could do to “prevent” a stage 2 complaint. The reply from the SNHE was that most of the problems were beyond its control as it was waiting for the developers to install parking plaques and the cycle storage facility. They said there was also a bin problem that they were looking into this week.
On 11 May 2022, the landlord called the resident to gain a better understanding of his complaint. This Service has not seen the notes from this call, but the landlord later told us that during this call it committed to providing the resident with a progress update within a week, however it did not follow up on this.
The landlord contacted the planning team at the local council regarding the application for bicycle loops being installed at the scheme. It asked if they could assist it as the cycle storage was a planning requirement and had not been provided by the developer.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and stated it aimed to provide a response by 13 June 2022.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord escalated the lack of progress with the outstanding issues to the director within the developer.
On 13 June 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. Within this it apologised that the concerns raised in his stage 1 complaint remained unresolved. It said it had escalated the outstanding items to the director of the developer as it was unable to fully resolve this without their involvement.
1. Regarding parking, it said it was waiting for more information on the installation of parking discs, it would update him on the progress of this by 17 June 2022.
2. Regarding bike storage, the landlord stated it was sorry that he was still having to use his home to store his bike. It said it fully acknowledged that it told him that suitable bike storage would be available when he purchased his home. We’ve escalated by reporting this to the planning department at the local council so they could help it get this sorted. One of the conditions of planning is that the developer oversee the installation of the bike storage and it expected this to be part of the update received from them this week.
3. In relation to refuse disposal, the landlord acknowledged the temporary measures put in place had not always helped. It said it had spoken to the developer and they have agreed to provide ‘Euro bins,’ these were large bins used for communal purposes. However, it must ensure the refuse team can access the bin store to empty them. It had made contact with the council and asked them to visit the site so they can confirm if this is possible. If it isn’t possible, it would arrange to clear the bin store and would provide each resident with a bin so they can transport their refuse to the collection point safely.
4. In relation to grounds maintenance, the landlord said it was sorry that he had not seen any improvement in this service since its stage 1 response. It had flagged this to its contractors and they would be onsite next week to complete an inspection of their service. The landlord said it would like to know about the particular areas he was unhappy with and asked that he send it photos of the areas of concern and provided an email address. If said it had asked its strategic partnership manager to look at these so it could pick this up through its contract management meetings and if necessary, address this with all residents affected.
The landlord stated in terms of its communication, it said it did not expect residents to send excessive amount of emails so they could find out updates or actions. It acknowledged that its customer service provided fell below expected standards in this regard. It said to start to put things right, it had asked its SNHE to become his point of contact until the issues were resolved (this was a new SNHE).
The landlord apologised the issues had impacted him enjoying his first home. It offered £650 in compensation in acknowledgement of it not resolved the issues as promised in its stage 1 complaint response. This figure was made up of £300 for its communications and £350 for delays in resolving his complaint.

Matters arising following the landlord’s final response.

A representative from the local council visited the scheme a few days later to assess if ‘euro bins’ were appropriate for the site and whilst it was considered they were, it was identified that amendments to bin stores would be necessary to house the bins.
On 8 August 2022, the landlord told the resident work to the bin store would take place on 9 August 2022 and that the bins had been ordered with the council. It also advised that once it had received an update from the developer regarding the cycle store and the parking numbers, it would be in touch.
The landlord’s SNHE provided updates to the resident about the parking and cycle facility on 1, 2, 12 and on 27 September 2022 when it said it was still chasing the developer about these issues.
On 5 October 2022, the landlord contacted the developer asking that it provide an update on the outstanding works. The developer replied on 6 October 2022 advising the issues had been escalated and it would notify of a date they would attend to resolve the issues.
The landlord provided a further update to the resident on 12 October 2022 advising:
1. The cycle rack had been delivered however the location had changed and it would now be installed on grass by the single parking space.
2. The parking discs had been delivered and would be installed. It said the bricks laid were supposed to outline each space, however, the developer would replace the bricks to make the demarcation clearer.
On 28 October 2022, the landlord told the resident that the parking discs would be installed “next week”, and the “remaining work” would be undertaken starting on 7 November 2022.
The parking discs were installed on 3 November 2022 and the parking demarcation works completed on 8 November 2022. The cycle store could not be installed due to an issue with insufficient space. On the same date, the landlord emailed the planning enforcement team at the local council regarding a new location.
In its update provided to this Service on 22 November 2022, the landlord told us that:
1. The euro bins were delivered on 10 October 2022 and explained that the delay was because it had to consult with the local authority.
2. The cycle store could not be installed on 8 November 2022 as the original area allocated for this was no longer available partly because of the amendments to the refuse store leaving insufficient space. It said an alternative location for bike storage had been identified and it was in the process of consulting with residents about this. It said if residents were happy with proposals, the developer would start work on this in early January 2023.
On 6 December 2023, the resident confirmed to this Service that all of the issues had been resolved.

The landlord’s policies and obligations

There was 12 months defect period in which the developer was responsible to address repairs and defects.
Under the lease the landlord is responsible to maintain, repair and clean the common parts.
Under the lease the landlord is able to charge through the (variable) service charge: “for expenditure reasonably incurred in connection with the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services…”. This is echoed in the landlord’s service charge policy which makes clear estimated service charge costs will be provided to residents and that the landlord will then give residents a breakdown of the costs incurred for the previous accounting period.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. This requires it to acknowledge the complaint within 2 working days and provide a response within 10 working days from the date it received the complaint. At the stage 2 review, the landlord must reply within 10 working days however its policy states that it has discretion to extend these timescales where appropriate; in these situations, the landlord will keep the resident updated and inform them when they will receive a response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the reports of a lack of provision of promised communal facilities and about associated service charges

The Ombudsman expects the landlord to handle issues for which it is responsible appropriately by resolving them within a reasonable timeframe after being raised by a resident and by providing regular updates to the resident.
In this case the property is a new build and soon after moving in, the resident raised a concern with the landlord about the refuse facilities at the scheme. Shortly following this, he raised a complaint regarding the lack of grounds maintenance and cycle storage as well an issue with parking as he said whilst there were spaces for multiple vehicles, due to no identifiable markings, he often found there was no space left to park his vehicle. As these concerns relate to communal facilities and services paid for through the service charge, the landlord was responsible for investigating his concerns and resolving any matters that it was responsible for.
It is clear from the landlord’s records that it investigated the issues internally and identified that because the developer had not yet installed parking discs or a cycle store which it was contractually obliged to do (and had been promised to the resident), they were responsible for completing works necessary to resolve these aspects of his complaint. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord recognised this, it had an obligation to maintain regular communication with the developer to ensure they took appropriate action to provide the agreed facilities in order to resolve the resident’s complaint.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the parking discs (to make clear each allocated space) had been ordered and said that the developer would install these when they arrive. Regarding the cycle store it told the resident that whilst the council had approved planning for this and that the developer would be installing this once ‘hoops’ had delivered. It did not have any timescales for this despite chasing the developer for this. Whilst the landlord’s records confirm it had been in contact with the developer to chase these works and to request a timescale which was appropriate, it is reasonable to expect it to give timescales when committing to an action in order to manage a resident’s expectations about when such actions would be provided. It is acknowledged that the landlord was reliant on the developer for timescale of actions relating to the cycle store and parking issue. However, this Service is mindful that it also did not provide any clear timescales for actions in relation to the refuse and grounds maintenance issues which it was responsible for. It is reasonable to conclude that the lack of any timescales given, would have caused the resident additional stress and inconvenience.
Although the evidence indicates landlord contacted the developer on at least 7 further occasions over the next 6 months to chase the works, neither the cycle store or parking discs were installed within this timeframe. It is noted that the landlord eventually escalated the issues to senior management within the developer however it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have taken this action much sooner than it did after resolution of the issues were not being progressed by the developer.
Regarding the refuse issue, despite the landlord telling the resident at stage 1 that it was looking into supplying communal bins and it would provide an update to residents once a decision had been finalised, this issue was not resolved within the next 6 months and only 1 update was given on 10 April 2022. Whilst the landlord’s records show it had contacted the local council following the resident’s stage 1 complaint to enquire about the possibility of communal bins who’d suggested installing a ‘Euro bin’ service, it is clear that no meaningful action was taken by the landlord to follow up on this. Therefore, despite the landlord taking some steps to action these stage 1 promises, the lack of any resolution within 6 months was unreasonable. Although this Service recognises that due to the involvement of third parties a resolution may take a bit longer, on balance the lack of any resolution at this stage, indicates a failing by the landlord to deal with these issues within a reasonable timeframe.
Regarding grounds maintenance, in its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged and apologised to the resident for failing to set up a grounds maintenance contractor at his scheme and said its contractor would attend the site that week and that it had instructed them to add the resident’s scheme to the contract it had with them. Whilst the landlord’s acknowledgement of its failure and promise of action was appropriate, in his 5 March 2022 communication the resident reported that not once had anyone attended to maintain communal grounds. He reiterated in his 22 April 2022 escalation request. There is no clear evidence to demonstrate that the resident’s scheme had been allocated to a grounds maintenance contractor as had been promised by the landlord in its stage 1 response. On balance this is further evidence of the landlord failing to do what it told the resident it would do at stage 1 and is a further failing by the landlord.
The lack of resolution to the issues indicates the landlord failed to take the resident’s complaint seriously. This led to the resident raising a further complaint with the landlord on 22 April 2022. Within his complaint, he expressed a strong dissatisfaction with the service provided including the landlord’s poor communication throughout. Given the lack of updates provided to the resident on the outstanding complaint issues during the six months followed the landlord’s stage 1 response, this was understandable and is indicative of poor communication by the landlord. The resident requested that the issues were urgently addressed within a reasonable timeframe.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the issues he raised at stage 1 remaining unresolved several months later and said it had flagged the lack of improvement in the grounds maintenance service with its contractors who would attend the site next week and complete an inspection of its service. Similarly, it promised to ensure that the developer would install a cycle store, parking discs and demarcation and said it had escalated these outstanding issues to the director at the developer to action. In regard to the refuse issue, it said the developer had agreed to provide communal bins although the refuse team must be able to access the bin store to access them and that it needed to check with the local council if this was possible. The landlord acknowledged its communication with the resident had fallen below expected standards and told the resident it had asked its SNHE to become his point of contact until the issues were resolved.
Therefore, by apologising for its failings, recommitting to resolve the issues and appointing its SNHE to be the resident’s point of contact until the issues were resolved, the landlord went some way to putting things right. However, the landlord did not provide any anticipated timescale for the overall resolution of the issues. Considering the issues had already been outstanding for at least 6 months, this was unreasonable. Whilst in this investigation we are unable to investigate events post the landlord’s final response, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to demonstrate that it delivered on the actions promised in its final response within a reasonable timeframe.
The evidence seen by this Service indicates that all of the issues that remained outstanding at the date of the landlord’s final response have since been resolved. It is noted that the grounds maintenance service at the scheme had started by August 2022 indicating it took the landlord approximately 11 months from the resident’s formal complaint, to address this complaint. The bin issue was resolved in part when the refuse storage was reconfigured on 9 August 2022 and in full when the communal bins were provided on 10 October 2022 showing it took the landlord approximately 14 months from when first raised, to resolve this element.
It is clear that the parking issue was fully addressed on 8 November 2022 after parking discs were installed and better demarcation applied, showing this issue took around 14 months for the landlord to resolve. However, the cycle storage was not installed until around January 2023 due to the landlord needing to consult with residents and apply for planning regarding a change to the location of the cycle storage. Whilst it is recognised that the resolutions to the bin, parking and cycle issues were complex due to the need for the landlord to consult with third parties including the developer and the local council’s refuse and planning teams, there were periods where the landlord failed to take sufficient steps to progress. The overall length of time taken to provide resolution was unreasonable.
Based on the failings identified during this assessment as detailed above, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to the resident’s reports about the lack of provision of promised communal facilities or services charged through the service charges. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered the resident £260 in compensation for delays in communication and in its final response it offered the resident a further £650 made up of £300 for poor communication and £350 for delays in resolving his complaint.
On balance, together with the apology and appointment of a new SNHE to be the resident’s point of contact, this amount was reasonable for the delays and failings up to this date. However, due to no timescales given for the outstanding actions in the final response and because 3 of the issues remained outstanding for a further 4 to 7 months following the final response, this Service considers that the compensation provided falls short of what is reasonable and proportionate to the failings identified and overall delay.
In the circumstance it is reasonable to order that the landlord pay the resident £400 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This amount falls within the range stated for maladministration within our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 20 October 2021. As the resident submitted his complaint on 30 September 2021, its response was provided outside of the 10 working day timescale, albeit only by 4 working days. This was a minor failing.
At stage 2, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s email of 22 April 2022 wherein the resident complained about its service provided and specifically stated that he would like to re-open his (stage 1) complaint. The landlord only logged a complaint after the resident sent a further email on 10 May 2022 chasing it for a response to his complaint. Its failure to escalate or acknowledge the resident’s 22 April 2022 stage 2 complaint is evidence of the landlord not following its complaint policy.
This Service notes the comment in the landlord’s internal dated 11 May 2022 regarding what could be done to “prevent” a stage 2 complaint. A positive complaints culture at a landlord deems complaints as an opportunity to improve its service, in this instance to review its handling of the resident’s complaint at stage 1 therefore the landlord’s comment indicates a failure to recognise this on this occasion. Although the landlord called the resident on 11 May 2022 regarding his complaint, it then failed to acknowledge the complaint in writing until 30 May 2022, some 26 working days after the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The landlord subsequently provided its stage 2 response on 13 June 2022 meaning this was provided 41 working days after it received the complaint indicating a delay of 31 working days. Whilst its policy states it has discretion to extend timescales, there is no evidence of it informing the resident of any extension to this timescale beforehand. Therefore, the delay in escalating and responding to the resident’s complaint at stage 2 is a complaint handling failing by the landlord.
It is noted that in both his stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the resident complained about paying for services through the service charge that he believed he had not received. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes clear that the landlord should address all points raised in a complaint as such it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have addressed this point in its complaint responses.
It is noted that in his 5 March 2022 communication, the resident specifically requested a refund of the service charge for the grounds maintenance service he had complained about. Whilst the landlord explained in its 21 March 2022 response that estimated charges were reconciled at the end of the financial year, given that that the resident raised this point again in his stage 2 escalation request, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to have considered this as part of his complaint and explained in its final response if his complaints regarding grounds maintenance or refuse issues warranted any refund of the service charge.
In light of the failings identified, there was maladministration by the landlord whilst handling the resident’s associated complaint. The landlord did not award any compensation specifically for complaint handling in addition to the figures mentioned above. Therefore, in the circumstance it is reasonable to order that the landlord pay the resident £250 in compensation for the stress and inconvenience, time and trouble caused. This amount falls within the range stated for maladministration within our remedies guidance.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when responding to reports of a lack of provision of promised communal facilities and about associated services charges.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the related complaint.

Reasons

There were excessive delays by the landlord in addressing the resident’s complaints about services charges and about communal facilities promised at the time of purchase. There were also communication failures by the landlord.
There were a number of failings by the landlord when handling the related complaint including an unreasonable delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and a failure to not address the issues in full.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders within 4 weeks that the landlord:
1. Pays the resident additional compensation of £650 made up of:
  1. £400 for failings in responding to reports about a lack of provision of promised communal facilities or services charged through the service charges.
  2. £250 for its complaint handling failures.
2. Writes to the resident addressing his points about being charged for services he believed he was not receiving and explaining if his complaint warranted any refund of the service charge.
The Ombudsman recommends for further learning, that the landlord reads our Insight report on Service Charges and the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.