The Guinness Partnership Limited (202127772)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127772

Guinness Housing Association Limited

31 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account and request for service charge breakdowns.
2. The increase in service charges and their reasonableness, including communal water and management fees.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the standard of cleaning services provided.
4. Complaints handling.

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.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the increase in service charges and their reasonableness, including communal water and management fees, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is because the Ombudsman cannot make a binding decision on complaints about the level of or increase to service charges or determine whether service charges are reasonable or payable.
Complaints related to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber). The First-Tier Tribunal can look at whether a refund of service charge should be given. The resident may wish to contact the First Tier Tribunal if she wishes to pursue this aspect of her complaint further. This Service can however consider the landlord’s communication around the service charges and whether it followed its policies and procedures.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom flat within a block. The landlord has not been able to supply a copy of the tenancy agreement but has provided a blank example from the time the resident signed her tenancy agreement.
The landlord has a service charge policy which says that it will set service charges which:
1. Comply with legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements, including the terms of tenancy agreements.
2. Are calculated based on the cost of providing services.
3. Seek to deliver value for money.
4. Are affordable.
5. Can be clearly explained to customers.
The policy says that service charges can include costs for expenditure to maintain a block or estate and can include communal maintenance, cost of communal facilities and management fees. Service charges are set based on expected expenditure for that year. The policy says the landlord will give residents “access to relevant records” if requested.
The landlord has an estate maintenance policy which applies to external and internal communal areas. Under the policy it will “regularly check the quality of estate services provided to ensure that they meet the required standards”. The landlord will seek to deliver value for money in its provision of estate services. The policy says the landlord will “carry out regular inspections on sites where estate services are provided…assess the service provided by contractors [and] may invite customers to assist us in monitoring estate standards”.
The landlord’s complaints policy, which was in use in 2020, does not define a complaint. The policy sets out a two stage complaints process. The landlord will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days. The policy says that the landlord will do this by discussing the complaint with the resident to agree a solution. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. At stage two a manager will review the complaint and respond within ten working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy, which was in use in 2021, defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by [the landlord], our staff, or those acting on our behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents or person who is affected by [our] services.” If a resident expresses dissatisfaction the landlord will try to put things right, but if it cannot or the resident wants to raise a complaint then the landlord will record this as such.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Under its policy it will acknowledge stage one complaints within two working days. The landlord will give the resident the opportunity to set out their complaint and make any comments. It will then provide its response within ten working days. If it is unable to do this with good reasons it will update the resident and provide its response within a further ten working days. If the resident is dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to stage two. An independent manager will investigate the complaint and provide a response within 20 working days. If it is unable to do this with good reasons it will update the resident and provide its response within a further ten working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the landlord will advise them to contact this Service.
Under the landlord’s compensation policy, it will consider making an offer of compensation where there has been a service failure. The landlord can compensate for loss, damage, and inconvenience and distress. It will consider the severity of the failure, duration and detriment caused to the resident and household when calculating compensation. Each case will be considered individually. The policy contains a table of guideline compensation amounts based on duration and level of inconvenience.

Summary of events

The landlord sent the resident a letter informing her of changes to her rent and service charges for 6 April 2020 to 04 April 2021, on 11 February 2020.
On 27 February 2020 the resident called the landlord to discuss her service charge. She said that the service charge should be lower as she was not receiving the cleaning service being paid for. The landlord’s records say it returned her call and left a voicemail to say that the service charge estimate was correct, and any change in service costs would be reflected in the following year’s estimate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 March 2020. In her email she said she had raised a complaint about the cleaning service several weeks ago but had not heard back. She said the cleaning contractor was not cleaning above ground floor level and was falsifying the attendance records.
On 1 April 2020 the landlord tried to call the resident. The resident then tried to call the landlord back without success. The landlord returned her call and discussed the complaint. It said it would investigate and update her.
The landlord emailed the resident on 29 April 2020 to say that it was still investigating her complaint. It said it was in conversation with the cleaning contractor and was escalating the complaint to management at the contractor.
On 30 April 2020 the resident called the landlord about her complaint. She said that the cleaning contractor visited her unannounced and asked her what her complaint was about. The resident said she felt this was very unprofessional and was really unhappy with how the complaint had been handled. The landlord apologised and said it would investigate this.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 May 2020 to say that it was still investigating the resident’s complaint and that it would call her once it had an update.
Following a request from the Ombudsman for further information about the resident’s complaint, the landlord has told this Service “this complaint was resolved prior to us issuing written responses. The last discussion with [the resident] regarding this complaint was on 30 April 2020, we have no record of any requests to escalate this complaint.”
On 19 February 2021 the landlord sent the resident a letter informing her of changes to her rent and service charges for 1 April 2021 to 31 March 2022. The letter said that the resident’s weekly service charge was £47.13.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 February 2021 to query why the service charge had increased so much. She said that the charge was causing her stress. In an internal email the following day the landlord said that a formal complaint had been made. However, in other internal landlord records it notes the landlord advised the resident to make a formal complaint.
On 1 March 2021 the resident called the landlord, and the landlord recorded a formal complaint at stage one of its process. The complaint was about:
1. Charges for electricity, agency charge, management fee had all increased.
2. Responsive repairs were included but previously called communal repairs.
3. Charges were included for solar panels and communal water when the block did not have these.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day to acknowledge the complaint. It said, due to Covid-19 it may take it longer to respond, and it would aim to respond to her complaint within 20 working days.
On 4 March 2021 the resident called the landlord for an update. The landlord said that it was investigating the complaint and would update her.
The landlord wrote to the resident the same day to provide it stage one response. In its response it said:
1. The communal electricity charge was correct.
2. The managing agent fee was variable and based on expenditure in the previous year.
3. The management fee was 15% of the charges and not a fixed fee; there was an error in the letter.
4. The charge for solar panels was an error and would be removed.
5. Responsive repairs was the new name for the communal repairs charge and it apologised for any confusion.
6. Communal water had always been charged for.
7. A discount should have been applied which had not been.
8. To put things right it would re-issue a new service charge letter with the corrections included.
9. How to escalate the complaint if the resident remained dissatisfied and that the resident could contact this Service at any point for advice.
On 5 March 2021 the resident called the landlord about her complaint. She said she had spoken to a neighbour who she said had been told by the landlord that the service charge letter sent in February 2021 was correct. The resident said she wanted clarification. The landlord called the resident back on 8 March 2021. During the call the resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage two of the landlord’s process.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 May 2021 to provide its stage two response. In its response it said:
1. The resident’s complaint was about the service charge bill and that she had queried her cleaning charge.
2. It had attached a correct copy of the service charge bill for 2021 to 2022. This Service has not been provided with a copy of this service charge bill.
3. All residents on the estate pay cleaning charges, but some blocks may have different levels of service, and that the charge is “apportioned appropriately” based on the service provided.
4. “The service you received was not acceptable and I can understand how this must have caused you distress. We have taken on board your feedback has provided lessons learnt to the team”.
The landlord offered £50 in compensation for the inconvenience caused. It also explained that the resident had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process and gave information on how to contact this Service.

Events after the end of the landlord’s complaints process

On 14 May 2021 the resident called the landlord and asked for a callback about her complaint. The landlord called the resident on 20 May 2021. The landlord’s note of the call says that the resident was unhappy with the stage two response. She said that the landlord had not provided a new service charge letter and had not answered her complaint fully.
The landlord surveyed the resident on its handling of her complaint on 7 June 2021. The resident said she still had not received the new service charge letter and still wanted to query the charges.
The following day the resident called the landlord to speak about the service charges which she said had still not been corrected. No-one was available at the landlord to speak to her about this.
On 11 June 2021 the landlord sent two service charge letters for 2021 to 2022 to the resident. One said the weekly service charge was £18.95 and the other said it was £25.41.
The landlord sent a further service charge letter on 21 July 2021 which said the service charge for 2021 to 2022 was £25.41 per week.
The resident called the landlord on 3 March 2022, 21 March 2022, 13 April 2022, and 19 April 2022 to ask for a refund for the overpayment of service charges she had made before the amount payable was corrected. During the last call, the landlord agreed to reduce her direct debit payment to refund her the overpayment. It also called the resident back on 20 April 2022 to say that the communal water service charge had been removed and a new letter would be sent out; it is not clear to the Ombudsman whether this related to the 2021 to 2022 period or for the 2022 to 2023 period.
The resident approached this Service and following the Ombudsman’s request for information on 27 July 2022, the landlord decided to review the resident’s complaint. It wrote to her on 18 August 2022 and in its letter it:
1. Said it identified that its complaint responses had not fully addressed the resident’s concerns.
2. Explained how it calculated service charges generally.
3. Said that in its stage one response it had identified errors with the service charge letter it had sent in February 2021 and would send a corrected letter. It explained how the charges were calculated but accepted that it could have explained this in more detail to give some clarity at the time.
4. Accepted that, while it offered compensation in its stage two response, it “failed to provide [the resident] with a clear explanation of how your charges have been calculated and did not apologise for our delay in providing you with a response to your complaint.”
5. Identified further failures, such as its delay in sending a corrected service charge letter, and then sending two on the same date with different amounts. It also said that it did not call the resident back within two working days after she called on 18 May 2021 and apologised for this.
6. Said its service had been poor and apologised for the increased stress and inconvenience caused. It offered additional compensation (to the £50 paid on 8 June 2022) of £150 broken down as:
  1. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
  2. £25 for time and trouble.
  3. £25 for poor communication.
7. Told the resident to contact it to accept the compensation, which it would credit to her rent account.
8. Confirmed that further training had been provided and its policies reviewed to learn from the complaint.
The resident has told this Service that she does not recall receiving the landlord’s letter of 18 August 2022. She did not know that the landlord had offered the further £150 compensation and she has not received this at the date of this report.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account and request for service charge breakdowns

The landlord sent a letter detailing the rent and service charges for the year 2020-2021. The letter explains “service charges may vary each year as the costs associated with managing your scheme might change. When setting your service charge, we also take into account any year-on-year increase in the charge, as well as whether we have informed you of any change to services following formal consultation. Where your charges appear high, we may decide to apply a discount which will be reflected in your overall charge.” This explanation is helpful and clear.
In its stage one complaint response on 4 March 2021, the landlord set out an explanation for the charges. It admitted that it had made mistakes in charging for solar panels, in saying that the agent fee was fixed rather than variable and that it had not applied a discount. It also apologised for confusion caused in renaming its repairs charge. However, its explanation for the increase in communal electricity charge was still confusing and difficult to understand, which was a failing. It also explained that “communal water has always been charged to 6 properties on the scheme” without further explanation and that was a failing. To put things right the landlord said it would issue a new service charge letter with the corrections made.
By the time of its stage two response on 10 May 2021 the resident had not been sent a new service charge letter and so the landlord had not done what it said it would do to resolve the complaint. It had not put things right. The landlord said in its stage two response it had included a copy of the new service charge letter, however it had not. The landlord offered £50 compensation for the inconvenience the resident had endured waiting for the correct service charge letter.
The landlord’s service charge policy says that its service charges should be “clearly explained to customers” and that it will provide “access to relevant records” if requested. The landlord did not follow its policy; it did not clearly explain all of the service charges nor offer or provide records to the resident.
In its letter dated 18 August 2022, long after the end of its complaints process, the landlord accepted that it had failed to provide a clear explanation on how service charges were calculated. It said that it could have explained in more detail and given more clarity. It is positive that the landlord had recognised these failings by that stage. It also provided a full breakdown of charges and explanation within its letter, something it should have done earlier in either its stage one or two complaint responses.
The landlord also acknowledged in its letter that it had failed to send a corrected service charge letter until 11 June 2021, when it sent one correct and one incorrect letter on the same day. This would have caused further confusion and frustration for the resident. The landlord sent a final service charge letter on 21 July 2021 and in its letter of 18 August 2021 it said this one was correct. After reviewing the three service charge letters from June and August 2021, the letters are identical apart from the figures included. There is no sentence or wording included to state that the letter is corrected or amended, or any message to disregard any previous service charge letters. There is no reassurance that that service charge letter is the most up-to-date or correct. It would have been helpful for the 18 August 2021 letter to have included this messaging.
Although the landlord offered compensation of £100 for stress and inconvenience, and £25 for poor communication, this was offered long after the end of the complaints process. Overall, there was maladministration. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £250 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the standard of cleaning services provided

The resident made a complaint about the standard of cleaning provided on 27 February 2020. She followed this up on 31 March 2020 and spoke to the landlord on 1 April 2020. The resident contacted the landlord again on 30 April 2020 to say that the cleaning contractor had visited her and asked what her complaint was about, and she thought this was unprofessional.
The landlord said on 29 April 2020, 30 April 2020, and 10 May 2020 that it was investigating the resident’s complaint, however there are no records of what it did, if anything, to investigate and this is a failing. The landlord has also told the Ombudsman that it did not provide a written complaint response.
Although not directly raised as part of the resident’s stage one complaint on 1 March 2021, the landlord in its stage two response on 10 May 2021 said that she had queried her cleaning charge based on the service she had received. It said that blocks may receive “different services”. It did not however go into any detail on what level of service the resident should have been receiving and this was a failing. It would have been more solution focused if the landlord had clearly set out what tasks the cleaning company should carry out, the frequency and expected duration of visits. It could have also explained if or when it inspected the cleaning service.
Under its estates policy the landlord said it checks the quality of work and inspects regularly, however the landlord has failed to provide any evidence of this to the resident or to this Service. The landlord’s service charge policy states that it aims to deliver value for money, however, it has failed to demonstrate this by not checking the standard of cleaning.
There was maladministration. The landlord did not demonstrate that it investigated the resident’s first complaint in 2020 or her second complaint in 2021 about the cleaning services provided. It appears to have confused the issue of the cost of the service with the resident’s concerns that the service was not being carried out properly. To reflect the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident an order has been made that the landlord pay £150 in compensation.

Complaints handling

When the resident made her first complaint on 27 February 2020 the landlord provided updates on 29 April 2020 and 10 May 2020 but there is no record it provided a complaint response. In an email to the Ombudsman the landlord said “this complaint was resolved prior to us issuing written responses. The last discussion with [the resident] regarding this complaint was on 30 April 2020, we have no record of any requests to escalate this complaint.” The landlord is clearly mistaken as its records show it contacted the resident on 10 May 2020 to say it was still investigating her complaint.
Under the complaints policy in use at the time, the landlord should have provided a response within ten working days. The policy did not require a written response. However, the landlord has not been able to provide any records or evidence that it responded to the complaint at all, and this is a failing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint the day it recorded it on 1 March 2021. It responded on 4 March 2021, well within its ten working days timeframe under its policy. The landlord’s response included information on how to escalate the complaint and how to contact this Service.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 8 March 2021. The landlord did not provide its stage two response until 10 May 2021, which was 43 working days later which was an unacceptable delay. The landlord’s policy says that it will respond within 20 working days but, if it cannot with good reasons, it will update the resident and provide its response within a further ten working days. The landlord failed to keep the resident updated, did not ask for an extension and did not apologise or compensate for the delay in its stage two response.
In its letter on 18 August 2022, the landlord accepted that it had not apologised for the delay in its stage two response. It offered £25 for poor communication alongside other compensation already considered in this report. The fact that the landlord sent this letter, and made this offer of additional compensation, after this Service became involved, demonstrates that it did not follow its complaints policy and that there were issues with its complaints handling. Offering compensation after the end of the complaints process is not an offer of redress. The Ombudsman also notes that the landlord’s compensation offer would be credited to the rent account, although the records show the resident’s account was and had always been in credit.
Overall, there was maladministration in complaints handling. An order has been made that the landlord pay additional compensation of £350 to reflect the additional time and trouble caused to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account and request for service charge breakdowns.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the standard of cleaning services provided.
3. Complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the increase in service charges and their reasonableness, including communal water and management fees, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasons

There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s service charge account and request for service charge breakdowns because the landlord made errors in how it presented the service charges, and its explanation of charges was not clear. It delayed for an unacceptable length before providing a correct service charge letter and did not make it clear which letter was correct.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the standard of cleaning services provided because the landlord failed to investigate, or evidence it investigated, the resident’s complaint in 2020 or 2021. It did not explain the level of service or frequency the resident should receive. It also failed to explain when and how it checked the level of service provided and the outcome of this.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling because it could not evidence that it responded to the resident’s first complaint. Its stage two response to her second complaint was unreasonably delayed and no apology or compensation for the delay was offered within it. While the landlord later recognised its failings, it did this after the end of its complaints process and only after the Ombudsman became involved.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures detailed in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation of £900 made up of:
  1. The £150 the landlord offered on 18 August 2022.
  2. £250 to reflect the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident in its handling of the resident’s service charge account.
  3. £150 for the inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident in its response to the resident’s complaint about the standard of cleaning services provided.
  4. £350 to reflect the additional time and trouble caused to the resident due to its complaints handling failure.
3. Provide a copy of the cleaning schedule and tasks to be undertaken by the cleaning company each visit to the resident or display a copy of this in the communal area of the block so that any resident can view this.
4. Provide evidence of the training, policy and procedure review undertaken as detailed in its letter to the resident dated 18 August 2022.
5. Carry out a self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
6. Confirm compliance with these orders to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord consider asking the resident if she would like to be an estate monitor, as set out within its estate management policy at paragraph 8.